12-2183 Paz v. Holder BIA Verrillo, IJ A094 028 449 

### 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** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 28 th** **day of March, two thousand thirteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 7 Chief Judge, 8 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 9 **RICHARD C. WESLEY,** 10 Circuit Judges**.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **MARLOS PAZ,** 14 15 Petitioner**,** 16 17 **v. 12-2183** 18 19 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 20 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 21 22 Respondent**.** 23

**_____________________________________** 24 25 **FOR PETITIONER: Elyssa N. Williams, Formica** 26 **Williams, P.C., New Haven, CT.** 27 28 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy** 29 **Assistant Attorney General; Holly M.** 30**Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel;** 1 **Edward C. Durant, Attorney, Office** 2 **of Immigration Litigation, United** 3 **States Department of Justice,** 4 **Washington, D.C.** 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Marlos Paz, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, seeks 11 review of an April 30, 2012 order of the BIA denying his 12 request for a remand and affirming the April 6, 2010 13 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Philip Verrillo, 14 finding him removable and ineligible for cancellation of 15 removal. In re Marlos Paz , No. A094 028 449 (B.I.A. Apr. 16 30, 2012),aff’gNo. A094 028 449 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Apr. 17 6, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 18 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 20 the IJ’s decision as supplemented and modified by the BIA. 21 See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 22 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 23 (2d Cir. 2005). To demonstrate eligibility for cancellation 24 of removal, an alien who is not a lawful permanent resident 25 must establish, in relevant part, that his “removal would 26

2result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to 1 [his] spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the 2 United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 3 residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). The agency 4 determined that Paz’s removal would have no such impact. 5 Paz has shown no error in that determination. 6 Paz argues that the agency mischaracterized the 7 evidence by disregarding or minimizing the severity of his 8 elder son’s medical condition. Our jurisdiction to review 9 this discretionary determination is limited, see 8 U.S.C. 10 § 1252(a)(2)(B), and although Paz’s argument can be 11 construed as a question of law, see 8 U.S.C. 12 § 1252(a)(2)(D); Mendez v. Holder, 566 F.3d 316, 322-23 (2d 13 Cir. 2009) (per curiam);Ilyas Khan v. Gonzales , 495 F.3d 14 31, 35 (2d Cir. 2007), no evidence as to the severity of the 15 condition was presented to the agency. 16 Paz submitted to the IJ a sheet with a list of his 17 sons’ diagnoses, without any information about his elder 18 son’s diagnosis, its seriousness, or what treatment or 19 medications were prescribed. Paz offered no context for the 20 medical records documenting his son’s appointments between 21 1998 and 2008, and his counsel elicited only the most basic 22

3testimony from Paz, who could not give medical testimony in 1 any event. It was Paz’s burden to show that his removal 2 would cause his child’s exceptional and extremely unusual 3 hardship. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(A)(i)-(ii). 4 Paz also argues that the IJ and the BIA failed to 5 interpret his facts in light of In re Gonzalez Recinas , 23 6 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 2002), and thus used the wrong legal 7 standard for exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. 8 This argument raises a question of law, but it is without 9 merit. See Ilyas Khan , 495 F.3d at 35. In Gonzalez 10 Recinas , the BIA considered such factors as the health of 11 the qualifying family members, ability of the alien to 12 obtain employment in the home country, ability to achieve 13 immigration status another way, and family and financial 14 assets to ease a transition. Gonzalez Recinas,23 I&N Dec. 15 at 469-71. In this case, both the IJ and the BIA cited 16 Gonzalez Recinasin their decisions, and considered the same 17 factors. The correct legal standard was applied. 18 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for reviewis 19 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 20 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 21 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 22

4is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in 1 this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 2 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 3 34.1(b). 4
FOR THE COURT: 5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 6 7 8

5