21-6562 Pastor Salas v. Garland 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 a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 17th day of January, two thousand twenty-three. PRESENT: Amalya L. Kearse, Rosemary S. Pooler, Steven J. Menashi, Circuit Judges. ____________________________________________ FERNANDO PASTOR SALAS, VERONICA MARIA MARTINEZ CASTILLERO, Petitioners, v. No. 21-6562 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________________________________ For Petitioners: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY. For Respondent: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Jonathan A. Robbins, Assistant Director, Regina Byrd, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Upon due consideration of this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the petition for review is DISMISSED. Petitioners Fernando Pastor Salas and Veronica Maria Martinez Castillero, citizens of Mexico, seek review of a decision of the BIA entered September 27, 2021, which affirmed the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), entered October 24, 2018, that denied their applications for cancellation of removal. In re Fernando Pastor Salas, Veronica Maria Martinez Castillero, Nos. A206 223 869/202 040 576 (B.I.A. Sept. 27, 2021), aff’g Nos. A206 223 869, 202 040 576 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 24, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). As an initial matter, the government argues that the petitioners failed to exhaust any of the issues they raise here. We conclude that, for the most part, the petitioners exhausted the issues by raising the same issues, albeit more generally in their brief to the BIA. See Gill v. INS, 420 F.3d 82, 86 (2d Cir. 2005) (“[W]e have never held that a petitioner is limited to the exact contours of his argument below.”). To be sure, the petitioners did not exhaust their claim that the IJ misstated the record as to whether their children would relocate to Mexico. But 2 even if they had exhausted it, they have not raised a colorable question of law with respect to that claim in any event, as discussed below. For “alien[s] who [are] inadmissible or …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals