21-6096 Umana v. Garland BIA Farber, IJ A073 669 919 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the 2 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 3 28th day of February, two thousand twenty-three. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 DENNIS JACOBS, 7 EUNICE C. LEE, 8 MYRNA PÉREZ, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 LUIS ALBERTO UMANA, 13 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 21-6096 17 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: SARAH H. SLOAN (Robert M. Loeb, on the brief), Orrick, 25 Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Washington, DC. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: JULIA J. TYLER, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of 28 Immigration Litigation (Tim Ramnitz, Senior Litigation 29 Counsel, on the brief) for Brian M. Boynton, Assistant 1 Attorney General, Civil Division, United States 2 Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a decision of the Board of 5 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the 6 petition for review is DISMISSED. 7 Petitioner Luis Alberto Umana, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a 8 January 27, 2021 decision of the BIA, affirming a December 3, 2019 decision of an Immigration 9 Judge (“IJ”), which denied his applications for two forms of cancellation of removal. In re Luis 10 Alberto Umana, No. A073 669 919 (B.I.A. Jan. 27, 2021), aff’g No. A073 669 919 (Immigr. Ct. 11 N.Y.C. Dec. 3, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 12 procedural history. 13 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, assume eligibility for relief as 14 the BIA did, and consider only the denial of relief as a matter of discretion. See Yang v. U.S. 15 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 16 Umana applied for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment 17 and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”), Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193 18 (1997), and for cancellation of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 19 § 1229b(b). Both forms of relief allow for cancellation of removal where applicants meet certain 20 requirements for presence, moral character, and hardship. See 8 U.S.C. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals