21-6498 Rose 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 19th day of May, two thousand twenty-three. PRESENT: Amalya L. Kearse, Dennis Jacobs, Steven J. Menashi, Circuit Judges. ____________________________________________ MATTHEW O’DANIEL ROSE, Petitioner, v. No. 21-6498 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent. * ____________________________________________ * The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above. For Petitioner: Melissa M. Desvarieux, Desvarieux Law Group, P.C., Long Island City, NY. For Respondent: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Kohsei Ugumori, David J. Schor, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. 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 Matthew O’Daniel Rose, a citizen of Jamaica, seeks review of an August 13, 2021, decision of the BIA denying his motion to remand and affirming a February 24, 2021, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for cancellation of removal. In re Matthew O Daniel Rose, No. A213 638 454 (B.I.A. Aug. 13, 2021), aff’g No. A213 638 454 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Feb. 24, 2021). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Our jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of discretionary relief, including cancellation of removal and adjustment of status, is limited to “constitutional claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1627 (2022) (“Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of discretionary- relief proceedings under … provisions enumerated in § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).”). Our review of motions to remand, like motions to reopen, is similarly limited when such motions are tied to discretionary relief. See Sepulveda v. Gonzales, 407 F.3d 59, 64 (2d Cir. 2005). Rose has not raised a reviewable constitutional claim or question of law as to the denial of cancellation of removal or as to the denial of his motion to remand. 2 To obtain cancellation of removal, a nonpermanent resident such as Rose must, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals