20

- 299 Huang v. Garland BIA A 077 998 197



### 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**  **ELECTR ONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION**  **“ SUMMARY ORDER**  **” ). A PARTY CITING TO 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** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Mar**  **shall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,**  3 **on the 1**  **4 t**  **h da**  **y of D**  **e c**  **e m**  **b e**  **r , two thousand**  **twenty**

**- one** 

**.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **ROSEMARY S. POOLER ,**  7 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR. ,**  8 **SUSAN L. CARNEY ,**  9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **HON SONG HUANG ,**  **AKA HANG SONG** 13 **HUANG ,**  14 **Petitioner ,**  15 16

**v. 20** 

**- 299**  17 **NAC** 18 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **ACTING** 19 **UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL**  **,** 20 **Respondent**

**. 1**  21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Thomas V. Massucci, Esq. , New 24 York , N Y

. 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** John S. Hogan , Assistant 27 Director; Deitz P. Lefort , Trial 28 Attorney , Office of Immigration 29

1 The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above.2 Litigation , United States 1 Department of Justice, Washington, 2
D C. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 7

is DENIED

. 8

Petitioner Hon Song Huang , a native and citizen of the 9

People’s Republic of China , seek s review of the BIA ’s den ial 10

of his motion to reopen

. In re Hon Song Huang , No. A 077 998 11

197 (B.I.A. Jan. 21, 2020 ). We assume the parties’ 12

familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 13

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 14

abuse of discretion. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 15

138, 16 8

- 6 9 (2d Cir. 2008). The BIA may deny a motion to 16

reopen if “the movant has not established a prima facie cas e 17

for the underlying substantive relief sought.” INS v. Abudu , 18

485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988). The BIA did not abuse its discretion 19

in denying Huang’s motion to reopen because he failed to 20

establish his prima facie eligibility for cancellation of 21

removal. See id. 22

Huang failed to allege that his removal would cause his 233 U.S. citizen wife or children any specific hardship, much 1

less the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” that is 2

required for cancellation of removal

. 8 U.S.C. 3

§ 1229b(b)(1) (D) ; see also In re Monreal

- Aguinaga , 23 I. & N. 4

Dec. 56, 62 (B

. I

. A

. 2001) (requiring applicant to show 5

hardship “substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that 6

would be expected when a close family member leaves this 7

country” (int ernal quotation marks omitted)). Because th e 8

agency’s hardship finding is dispositive of his petition , we 9

do not reach Huang’s argument that his notice to appear was 10

ineffective to stop his accrual of physical presence. See 11

INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 2 4, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule 12

courts and agencies are not required to make findings on 13

issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results 14

they reach.”). 15

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 16

DENIED

. Huang’s pending motion for a stay of removal is 17

DENIED. 18

FOR THE COURT: 19 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe, 20 Clerk of Court 21