Coello Farfan v. Barr

19-1819 Coello Farfan v. Barr BIA Straus, IJ A074 913 373 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 4th day of December, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., ROBERT A. KATZMANN, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ MIGUEL ANGEL COELLO FARFAN, AKA MIGUEL COELLO, Petitioner, v. 19-1819 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: GLENN L. FORMICA, ESQ., FORMICA, P.C., New Haven, CT. FOR RESPONDENT: COLIN J. TUCKER, Trial Attorney (Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, on the brief) for Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, 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 DENIED. Petitioner Miguel Angel Coello Farfan, a native and citizen of Peru, seeks review of decision of the BIA affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying adjustment of status and ordering him removed. In re Miguel Angel Coello Farfan, No. A 074 913 373 (B.I.A. June 3, 2019), aff’g No. A 074 913 373 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Jan. 26, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Adjustment to lawful permanent resident status is a discretionary form of relief available to a non-citizen who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa, is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and has an immigrant visa immediately available at the time of filing the adjustment application. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). When evaluating a request for such an adjustment, the agency engages in a “two-step process,” first determining eligibility and then deciding whether the relief is warranted as a matter of discretion. Rodriguez v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 60, 62 (2d Cir. 2006). Our jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of adjustment of status is limited to colorable constitutional claims and questions of law, which we 2 review de novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) & (D); see Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 2009). Petitioner raises two questions of law. See Argueta v. Holder, 617 F.3d 109, 113 (2d Cir. 2010) (noting that consideration of an improper factor would raise a ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals