21-6043-ag Paucar v. Garland In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit ________ AUGUST TERM 2022 ARGUED: JANUARY 20, 2023 DECIDED: JULY 12, 2023 No. 21-6043-ag JUAN PABLO PAUCAR, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, Respondent. ________ Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals. ________ Before: WALKER, RAGGI, and LEE, Circuit Judges. ________ Petitioner Juan Pablo Paucar petitions for review of a January 22, 2021 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision (1) affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal and (2) denying his motion to remand. The BIA rejected Paucar’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, declined to remand for consideration of additional hardship relating to his No. 21-6043 cancellation application, and declined to remand to await adjudication of his U visa application. Paucar argues that the BIA (1) applied an incorrect standard when reviewing his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, (2) overlooked and mischaracterized his new hardship evidence, and (3) failed to follow precedent when denying his request for remand while awaiting the adjudication of his U visa application. We are persuaded by Paucar’s arguments. Accordingly, we GRANT Paucar’s petition for review, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ________ LINDSAY NASH, Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic, New York, N.Y. (Paige Austin, Make the Road New York, Brooklyn, N.Y., on the briefs), for Petitioner. BRENDAN P. HOGAN, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for Respondent. ________ JOHN M. WALKER, JR., Circuit Judge: Petitioner Juan Pablo Paucar petitions for review of a January 22, 2021 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision (1) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal and (2) denying his motion to remand. See In re Paucar, No. AXXX XX0 803 (B.I.A. Jan. 22, 2021), aff’g No. AXXX 2 No. 21-6043 XX0 803 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. May 4, 2018). The BIA rejected Paucar’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, declined to remand for consideration of additional hardship relating to his cancellation application, and declined to remand to await adjudication of his U visa application. Paucar argues that the BIA (1) applied an incorrect standard when reviewing his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, (2) overlooked and mischaracterized his new hardship evidence, and (3) failed to follow precedent when denying his request for remand while awaiting the adjudication of his U visa application. We are persuaded by Paucar’s arguments. Accordingly, we GRANT Paucar’s petition for review, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. BACKGROUND I. Proceedings Before the IJ Paucar, a native and citizen of Ecuador, unlawfully entered the United States in 1999, when he was seventeen years old. In 2005, Paucar began a relationship with his now-wife, also a …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals