Figueroa v. Garland

21-6216 Figueroa v. Garland BIA O’Sullivan, IJ A214 700 882 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 the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 18th day of September, two thousand 4 twenty-three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 REENA RAGGI, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 METODIO GUZMAN FIGUEROA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 21-6216 17 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 1 FOR PETITIONER: Erin O’Neil-Baker, O’Neil Baker Law, LLC, 2 Hartford, CT 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Principal Assistant Attorney 5 General, Civil Division; Justin R. Markel, 6 Senior Litigation Counsel; Brooke M. Maurer, 7 Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration 8 Litigation, United States Department of 9 Justice, Washington, DC 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 11 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 12 DECREED that the petition for review is DISMISSED. 13 Petitioner Metodio Guzman Figueroa, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks 14 review of a March 25, 2021 decision of the BIA denying his application for 15 cancellation of removal. In re Metodio Guzman Figueroa, No. A 214 700 882 (B.I.A. 16 Mar. 25, 2021), rev’g No. A 214 700 882 (Immig. Ct. Boston May 28, 2020). 1 In 17 particular, Figueroa challenges the BIA’s decision reversing the determination of 18 an Immigration Judge granting his application for would cause his wife, a United 1 The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is the proper venue for this case because proceedings were completed in Boston. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2). We have retained Figueroa’s case, however, “in the interest of justice,” Sarr v. Garland, 50 F.4th 326, 333–34 (2d Cir. 2022), because the proceedings before us have been extensive and because the parties have not challenged venue, see Moreno-Bravo v. Gonzalez, 463 F.3d 253, 262 (2d Cir. 2006) (8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2) “is a venue provision, not a jurisdictional one. We therefore are not compelled to dismiss or transfer the petition, and in the circumstances here presented, we decline to do so.”). 2 1 States citizen, “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” See In re Metodio 2 Guzman Figueroa, No. A 214 700 882 …

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