Poku v. Garland

21-6318 Poku v. Garland BIA Straus, IJ A074 916 914 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 25th day of January, two thousand twenty-three. PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, EUNICE C. LEE, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ NANA OWUSU POKU, Petitioner, v. 21-6318 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: GLENN L. FORMICA, FORMICA P.C., New Haven, CT. FOR RESPONDENT: LINDA Y. CHENG, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation (Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, on the brief), for Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, 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 Nana Owusu Poku, a native and citizen of Ghana, seeks review of a May 20, 2021 decision of the BIA, affirming a June 28, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied his application to adjust to lawful permanent resident status. In re Nana Owusu Poku, No. A074 916 914 (B.I.A. May 20, 2021), aff’g No. A074 916 914 (Immigr. Ct. Hartford June 28, 2018). 1 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision. We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). Our jurisdiction to review a denial of discretionary relief, including waivers of inadmissibility and adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, is limited to colorable constitutional claims and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(i)(2), 1252(a)(2)(B), (D); Bugayong v. INS, 442 F.3d 67, 71–72 (2d Cir. 2006). “For jurisdiction to attach, the 1 Poku seeks to adjust his status under the I-130 petition of his adult son, who is a United States citizen. 2 petitioner’s argument must be more than a ‘quarrel[ ] over the correctness of the factual findings or justification for the discretionary choices.’” Marquez v. Garland, 13 F.4th 108, 114 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 471 F.3d 315, 329 (2d Cir. 2006)). Moreover, “we lack jurisdiction …

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