Badu v. Garland

22-6070 Badu v. Garland BIA Ruehle, IJ A074 971 262 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 13th day of January, two thousand twenty-three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 EUNICE C. LEE, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 GABRIEL BADU, 14 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 22-6070 18 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, The Yerman Group, LLC, 26 New York, NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy 29 Assistant Attorney General; John S. 30 Hogan, Assistant Director; Christina 31 R. Zeidan, Trial Attorney, Office of 1 Immigration Litigation, United States 2 Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 7 DISMISSED. 8 Petitioner Gabriel Badu, a native and citizen of Ghana, seeks 9 review of a January 19, 2022 decision of the BIA, affirming a March 10 19, 2019 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his 11 applications for a waiver of removability and cancellation of 12 removal. In re Gabriel Badu, No. A074 971 262 (B.I.A. Jan. 19, 13 2022), aff’g No. A074 971 262 (Immigr. Ct. Buffalo Mar. 19, 2019). 14 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 15 procedural history. 16 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. See 17 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 18 2006). Badu has abandoned any challenge to the agency’s denial 19 of cancellation of removal by not raising that claim in his brief, 20 and thus the only form of relief before us is the denial of his 21 request for a fraud waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H). See 22 Ahmed v. Holder, 624 F.3d 150, 153 (2d Cir. 2010) (per curiam). 23 Our jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of a discretionary 24 fraud waiver is limited to “colorable constitutional claims or 25 questions of law.” Ahmed, 624 F.3d at 154 (quoting Bugayong v. 2 1 INS, 442 F.3d 67, 68 …

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