20-5-ag Cruz v. Wilkinson 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 3 City of New York, on the 4th day of March, two thousand twenty-one. 4 5 PRESENT: BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 6 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 7 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 8 Circuit Judges. 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 10 WILDER CRUZ, 11 12 Petitioner, 13 v. No. 20-5-ag 14 15 ROBERT M. WILKINSON, ACTING 16 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, ∗ 17 18 Respondent. 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------ ∗ Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Robert M. Wilkinson is automatically substituted for former Attorney General William P. Barr. 1 FOR PETITIONER: KERRY A. DZIUBEK, Arnold & 2 Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP, New 3 York, NY (Molly Lauterback, 4 Andrea A. Sáenz, on the brief, 5 Brooklyn Defender Services, 6 Brooklyn, NY) 7 8 9 FOR RESPONDENT: GREGORY A. PENNINGTON, JR., 10 Trial Attorney (Carl McIntyre, 11 on the brief) Assistant Director, 12 Office of Immigration 13 Litigation, United States 14 Department of Justice, 15 Washington, DC 16 17 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 18 Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 19 AND DECREED that the petition for review is DISMISSED. 20 Petitioner Wilder Cruz, a citizen of Bolivia, seeks review of the BIA’s 21 March and December 2019 decisions denying his application for cancellation of 22 removal. In re Wilder Cruz, No. A 077 942 534 (B.I.A. Dec. 13, 2019); In re Wilder 23 Cruz, No. A 077 942 534 (B.I.A. Mar. 29, 2019). On appeal, Cruz raises three 24 arguments regarding the BIA’s March 2019 decision: first, the BIA erroneously 25 applied a de novo standard of review when it overturned findings of fact of the 2 1 immigration judge (IJ) regarding the nature of Cruz’s conviction for reckless 2 assault of a child; second, the BIA erroneously overturned the IJ’s credibility 3 determination without establishing that the IJ clearly erred; and third, the BIA 4 did not properly consider and weigh all of the evidence in the record. We 5 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history, 6 to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to dismiss Cruz’s 7 petition. 8 Our jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals