17-1451 Xioxian Zhou v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A205 427 585 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 25th day of October, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges, PAUL A. CROTTY,* District Judge. _____________________________________ XIAOXIAN ZHOU, Petitioner, v. 17-1451 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: VLAD KUZMIN, Kuzmin & Associates, P.C., New York, NY. * Judge Paul A. Crotty, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. FOR RESPONDENT: SHARON M. CLAY, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, (Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director, on the brief) United States 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 Xiaoxian Zhou, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 4, 2017 decision of the BIA affirming a June 30, 2016 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Zhou’s application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). In re Xiaoxian Zhou, No. A 205 427 585 (B.I.A. April 4, 2017), aff’g No. A 205 427 585 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 30, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. The agency denied cancellation on the ground that Zhou did not demonstrate that her U.S. citizen children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if she were removed to China. A nonpermanent resident, such as Zhou, may have her removal cancelled if, among other factors, she demonstrates that her “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative, here Zhou’s U.S. citizen sons. 2 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). “[T]he hardship to an alien’s relatives, if the alien is obliged to leave the United States, 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) (quoting H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-828, at 213 (1996)). We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals