16-3989 Iza-Pullataxig v. Sessions 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 2nd day of November, two thousand seventeen. Present: RALPH K. WINTER, GUIDO CALABRESI, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________________________ JOSE IZA-PULLATAXIG, Petitioner, v. 16-3989 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________________________ Appearing for Appellant: Michael Borja, Jackson Heights, N.Y. Appearing for Appellee: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, (Song Park, Senior Litigation Counsel; Timothy G. Hayes, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, on the brief) Washington, D.C. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED. Petitioner Jose Iza-Pullataxig, a native and citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of an October 25, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming the September 17, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Iza-Pullataxig cancellation of removal. In re Jose Iza- Pullataxig, No. A087 641 118 (B.I.A. Oct. 25, 2016), aff’g No. A087 641 118 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 17, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. To demonstrate eligibility for cancellation from removal, a petitioner must show that he (1) has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of at least ten years, (2) has been a person of good moral character during those years, (3) has not been convicted of certain offenses, and (4) demonstrates that his removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his U.S. citizen spouse, parent, or child. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The agency concluded that Iza-Pullataxig satisfied the first three factors but failed to establish that his removal would cause his U.S. citizen son the requisite hardship.We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness . . . .” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). Our jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal based on a petitioner’s failure to satisfy the hardship requirement is limited to constitutional claims and questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D); Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 39- 40 (2d Cir. 2008). ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals