Cruz-Arellano v. Garland

20-3059-ag Cruz-Arellano v. Garland 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. 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 6th day of December, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ GUILLERMO CRUZ-ARELLANO, aka GUILLERMO CRUZ, Petitioner, v. 20-3059-ag MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Ann Elise McCaffrey, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Michael C. Heyse, Acting Senior Litigation Counsel; Remi Da Rocha-Afodu, Trial Attorney, Office 1 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”) dated August 6, 2020, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Guillermo Cruz-Arellano, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the BIA’s August 6, 2020 decision summarily affirming a July 6, 2018 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Jesse B. Christensen denying Cruz-Arellano’s application for adjustment of status as a matter of discretion and ordering him removed. In re Guillermo Cruz-Arellano, No. A095 384 930 (B.I.A. Aug. 6, 2020), aff’g No. A095 384 930 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 6, 2018). 1 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have jurisdiction to review Cruz-Arellano’s petition because where, as here, the BIA summarily affirms an IJ’s decision, the IJ’s decision constitutes the “final agency determination,” see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4), and “the entirety of that decision — containing both issues that were and issues that were not raised to the BIA — is before us on review,” Lin Zhong v. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 122 (2d Cir. 2007). Cruz-Arellano raises several arguments in support of his petition before this Court: (1) that the Immigration Court and his attorney failed to inform him of available relief; (2) that IJ Christensen failed to consider hardship as a factor in Cruz-Arellano’s adjustment application; (3) that IJ Christensen erroneously required remorse and rehabilitation for criminal behavior in order to grant discretionary relief; and (4) that IJ Page and IJ Christensen exhibited bias during the course of Cruz-Arellano’s proceedings. Our review of an IJ’s discretionary denial of adjustment of status is limited to colorable constitutional claims and questions …

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