20-2637 Tenecela 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 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 19th day of October, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges, LEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge. * _____________________________________ FREDDY MAURICIO NIEVES TENECELA, AKA FREDDY NIEVES, AKA FREDDY MAURICIO TENECELA, Petitioner, v. 20-2637 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Erin O’Neil-Baker, O’Neil Baker Law, LLC, Hartford, CT. * Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. FOR RESPONDENT: Bryan Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Russell J. E. Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation; John D. Williams, Trial 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. Petitioner Freddy Mauricio Nieves Tenecela, a citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a July 28, 2020, decision of the BIA, affirming an April 30, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for cancellation of removal. In re Freddy Mauricio Nieves Tenecela, No. A206 781 573 (B.I.A. July 28, 2020), aff’g No. A206 781 573 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Apr. 30, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the physical presence finding that the BIA did not reach. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). A deportable or inadmissible alien such as Tenecela may have his removal cancelled if, as relevant here, the alien “establishes that removal would result in exceptional and 2 extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). The hardship to a qualifying relative “must be substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that would be expected when a close family member leaves this country.” In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 62 (B.I.A. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our jurisdiction to review the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals