17‐2612‐ag Palaguachi v. Whitaker BIA Mulligan, IJ A206 553 261 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 16th day of November, two thousand 4 eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 Circuit Judges, 10 SIDNEY H. STEIN,* 11 District Judge. 12 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 13 RAMIRO PALAGUACHI, 14 15 Petitioner, 16 * Judge Sidney H. Stein, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 v. No. 17‐2612‐ag 2 3 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, 4 ACTING UNITED STATES 5 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 6 7 Respondent. 8 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 9 FOR PETITIONER: Manuel D. Gomez, New York, NY. 10 11 FOR RESPONDENT: Madeline Henley, Attorney; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant 12 Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, for Chad A. 13 Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil 14 Division, United States Department of Justice, 15 Washington, DC. 16 17 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a decision of 18 the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 19 AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 20 Petitioner Ramiro Palaguachi petitions for review of his order of removal 21 to Ecuador. He challenges a July 26, 2017 decision of the BIA reversing the May 22 3, 2016 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granting him cancellation of 23 removal for certain nonpermanent residents pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). 24 Here, Palaguachi was required to show, among other things, that he had been a 25 person of good moral character for ten years in the United States. 8 U.S.C. 2 1 §§ 1101(f), 1229b(b)(1). The BIA concluded that Palaguachi did not have the 2 requisite period of good moral character under the “catchall” provision of 8 3 U.S.C. § 1101(f). In re Ramiro Palaguachi, No. A206 553 261 (B.I.A. July 26, 4 2017), rev’g No. A206 553 261 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 3, 2016). We assume 5 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the record of prior 6 proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to deny 7 the petition. 8 Because the BIA reversed the IJ, we review the BIA’s ruling as the final 9 agency decision. Yan ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals