Mangandi-Pena v. Garland

21-6028 Mangandi-Pena v. Garland BIA Aikman, IJ A094 436 204 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 13th day of February, two thousand twenty-three. PRESENT: MICHAEL H. PARK, BETH ROBINSON, SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ JOSE NICHOLAS MANGANDI-PENA, Petitioner, v. 21-6028 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Jose Perez, Esq., Syracuse, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Assistant Director; Jacob A. Bashyrov, 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 in part and DENIED in remaining part. Petitioner Jose Nicholas Mangandi-Pena, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a January 4, 2021, decision of the BIA affirming a July 13, 2020, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his applications for cancellation of removal and asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Jose Nicholas Mangandi-Pena, No. A 094 436 204 (B.I.A. Jan. 4, 2021), aff’g No. A 094 436 204 (Immig. Ct. Batavia July 13, 2020). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he administrative 2 findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”); Scarlett v. Barr, 957 F.3d 316, 326 (2d Cir. 2020) (reviewing factfinding for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo). I. Cancellation of Removal We lack jurisdiction to consider the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal because our review is limited, and Mangandi-Pena does not raise a constitutional claim or question of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); Barco- Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 36, 39–40 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1627 (2022) (“Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of discretionary-relief proceedings . . . enumerated in …

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