17-582-ag Yanney 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 twentieth of April, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. PHYLLIS YANNEY, Petitioner, 17-582-ag v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. FOR PETITIONER: James A. Welcome, Waterbury, CT. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Keith I. McManus, Assistant Director, John B. Holt, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 1 Petition for review of a February 2, 2017 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DISMISSED. Petitioner Phyllis Yanney, a native and citizen of Ghana, seeks review of a February 2, 2017, decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming a September 23, 2015, decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) ordering her removed to Ghana and denying a waiver of inadmissibility. In re Phyllis Yanney, No. A099 200 514 (B.I.A. Feb. 2, 2017), aff’g No. A099 200 514 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Sept. 23, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). When reviewing a discretionary denial of a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H), our jurisdiction is limited to constitutional claims and questions of law, which we review de novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), (a)(2)(D); Ahmed v. Holder, 624 F.3d 150, 153-54 (2d Cir. 2010); Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 2009). To invoke our jurisdiction, however, such a claim must be colorable. Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 40-41 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 329 (2d Cir. 2006). We discern no such claims here. Yanney argues that the IJ erroneously applied a heightened “‘extreme hardship’ standard,” Yenney Brief at 17, and failed to apply the balancing test described in In re Tijam, which requires weighing “an alien’s undesirability as a permanent resident with the social and humane ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals