17-2209 Saldivar Moran v. Sessions BIA Sichel, IJ A201 241 803 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 14th day of September, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, JOHN M. WALKER, JR., CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ MIGUEL SALDIVAR MORAN, AKA MIGUEL SALDIVAR, AKA MIGUEL MORAN SALDIVAR, Petitioner, v. 17-2209 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Robert Cini, Howard M. Rosengarten, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director; Kevin J. Conway, 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. Petitioner Miguel Saldivar Moran, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a June 30, 2017, decision of the BIA dismissing his appeal of a September 7, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering his removal and denying his application for cancellation of removal. In re Miguel Saldivar Moran, No. A 201 241 803 (B.I.A. June 30, 2017), aff’g No. A 201 241 803 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 7, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. I. Jurisdiction Our jurisdiction to review Saldivar Moran’s removal order is limited to de novo review of non-frivolous constitutional claims or questions of law, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 2009); Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we may not review Saldivar Moran’s challenge to the removal order if it “merely quarrels over the correctness of the factual findings or justification for the discretionary choices.” Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 329 (2d Cir. 2006). II. Governing Law A nonpermanent resident, such as Saldivar Moran, may have his removal cancelled if he demonstrates that his “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent, or child. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). To satisfy this standard, “the hardship to [his] relatives . . . must be ‘substantially’ beyond the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals