18-3681 Zheng v. Wilkinson BIA Hom, IJ A095 518 259 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 1st day of March, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ JINWEN ZHENG, Petitioner, v. 18-3681 NAC ROBERT M. WILKINSON, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 1 Respondent. _____________________________________ 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Robert M. Wilkinson is automatically substituted as Respondent. FOR PETITIONER: Zhen Liang Li, Esq., New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director; Sharon M. Clay, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 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 in part and DENIED in remaining part. Petitioner Jinwen Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 14, 2018, decision of the BIA affirming a September 29, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jinwen Zheng, No. A 095 518 259 (B.I.A. Nov. 14, 2018), aff’g No. A 095 518 259 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 29, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified and supplemented by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. 2 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Only the denial of cancellation and the denial of asylum and related relief on corroboration grounds are before us. I. Cancellation of Removal Our jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal, including the hardship determination, is limited to colorable constitutional claims and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 39–40 (2d Cir. 2008). A nonpermanent resident, such as Zheng, may have her removal canceled if she establishes, among other requirements, that her “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to her U.S. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals