Reina v. Sessions

16-3230 Reina v. Sessions BIA Straus, IJ A073 535 464 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. 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 3rd day of October, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges, JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge. _____________________________________ OSCAR A. REINA, AKA OSCAR REINA FLORES, Petitioner, v. 16-3230 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: ERIN I. O’NEIL-BAKER, Hartford Legal Group, LLC, Hartford, CT. FOR RESPONDENT: MATTHEW CONNELLY, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation (Chad Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration  Judge Jed S. Rakoff, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. Litigation; on the brief), United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DISMISSED. Petitioner Oscar A. Reina, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of an August 19, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a January 15, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying special rule cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i). In re Oscar A. Reina, No. A073 535 464 (B.I.A. Aug. 19, 2016), aff’g No. A073 535 464 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Jan. 15, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented and modified by the BIA. See Wala v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102, 105 (2d Cir. 2007); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Because the BIA assumed the marriage was bona fide, the only issue before us is the denial of relief based on Reina’s failure to show that he was battered or subjected to extreme cruelty. Xue Hong Yang, 426 F.3d at 522. Our jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of special rule cancellation of removal is limited to constitutional claims and questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D); Rosario v. Holder, 627 F.3d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 2010). Reina sought special rule cancellation as an abused former spouse ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals