20-1842 Torres v. Garland BIA Christensen, IJ A206 999 080/085 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 7th day of September, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., GUIDO CALABRESI, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ JOSE REMIGIO LITUMA TORRES, MARIA MAGDALENA MOLINA PIZARRO, Petitioners, v. 20-1842 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: H. Raymond Fasano, Esq, Youman, Madeo & Fasano, LLP, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Bryan Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Russell J.E. Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel; 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. Petitioners Jose Remigio Lituma Torres and Maria Magdalena Molina Pizarro, citizens of Ecuador, seek review of a May 21, 2020, decision of the BIA, affirming an April 30, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their application for cancellation of removal. See In re Jose Remigio Lituma Torres, Maria Magdalena Molina Pizarro, Nos. A206 999 080/085 (B.I.A. May 21, 2020), aff’g Nos. A206 999 080/085 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 30, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal. Where, as here, “the BIA briefly affirms the decision of an IJ and adopt[s] the IJ’s reasoning in doing so, we review the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions together.” Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Aliens subject to removal may have their removal canceled if they meet presence and character requirements and “establish[] that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to 2 [their] 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). This is a “very high standard,” Garcia v. Garland, 847 F. App’x 82, 83 (2d Cir. 2021), which will be met only when the hardship to a qualifying relative is “substantially beyond that which ordinarily would be expected to result from the alien’s deportation,” In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 69 (B.I.A. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals