19-3004-ag Santiago v. Barr 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 Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 3 New York, on the 2nd day of November, two thousand twenty. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 8 Circuit Judges, 9 TIMOTHY C. STANCEU, * 10 Judge. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 CONSTANTINO SANTIAGO, AKA 14 CONSTANTINO SANTIAGO-SANTIAGO, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-3004-ag 18 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Glenn L. Formica, Formica, P.C., New Haven, CT. * Chief Judge Timothy C. Stanceu, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. 1 2 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney 3 General, Civil Division; Nancy E. Friedman, 4 Senior Litigation Counsel; Sharon M. Clay, Trial 5 Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 United States Department of Justice, Washington, 7 DC. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 9 Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 10 DECREED that the petition for review is DISMISSED. 11 Petitioner Constantino Santiago, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a 12 September 5, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming an April 3, 2019 decision of an 13 Immigration Judge (IJ) denying Santiago’s application for cancellation of removal. We 14 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and prior record of 15 proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to dismiss. 16 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Wala v. 17 Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102, 105 (2d Cir. 2007). “Obtaining . . . cancellation of removal is a 18 two-step process. First, an alien must prove eligibility by showing that he meets the 19 statutory eligibility requirements. . . . Second, assuming an alien satisfies the statutory 20 requirements, the Attorney General in his discretion decides whether to grant or deny 21 relief.” Rodriguez v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 60, 62 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam); see also 8 22 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(A). Our jurisdiction to review a denial of discretionary relief is 23 limited to colorable constitutional claims and questions of law. See Barco-Sandoval v. 2 1 Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 39–40 (2d ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals