13-1608

Maciejowski v. Holder

BIA

Straus, IJ

A099 158 685

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

2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States

Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 30th 3

4 day of May, two thousand fourteen.

5

6 PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN,

7 DENNIS JACOBS,

8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES.

9 Circuit Judges. 

10 _______________________________________

11

12 EDWARD MACIEJOWSKI,

13 Petitioner, 

14

15 v. 13-1608

16

17 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES

18 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

19 Respondent.

20 ______________________________________ 21

22 FOR PETITIONER: Glenn T. Terk, Wethersfield,

23 Connecticut.

24

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney

26 General; Holly M. Smith, Senior

27 Litigation Counsel; Edward C. Durant,

28 Attorney, Office of Immigration

29 Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice,

30 Washington D.C.

31
1

2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

4 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is

5 DISMISSED.

6 Petitioner Edward Maciejowski, a native and citizen of

7 Poland, seeks review of an April 5, 2013, decision of the BIA

8 affirming the June 14, 2011, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”)

9 Michael W. Straus, denying as a matter of discretion his

10 application to adjust status. In re Edward Maciejowski, No. A099

11 158 685 (B.I.A. Apr. 5, 2013), aff’g No. A099 158 685 (Immig. Ct.

12 Hartford June 14, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with

13 the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

14 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for

15 the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237

16 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

17 Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), we lack jurisdiction to

18 review the agency’s exercise of discretion to deny Maciejowksi’s

19 application to adjust status. See Guyadin v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d

20 465, 468-69 (2d Cir. 2006). We do retain jurisdiction to review

21 de novo “constitutional claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C.

22 § 1252(a)(2)(D); Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir.

23 2009). However, “we lack jurisdiction to review any legal

24 argument that is so insubstantial and frivolous as to be

25 inadequate to invoke federal-question jurisdiction.” Barco26 Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 2008). 

2
1 Maciejowski’s arguments are not colorable. First, contrary

2 to his main contention, the IJ and BIA did not rely solely on the

3 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ determination that he

4 married to obtain immigration benefits: the IJ afforded

5 Maciejowski the opportunity to supplement the record with

6 evidence relevant to the bona fide nature of his marriage. 

7 Second, probative record evidence supports the IJ’s and BIA’s

8 finding that his marriage was fraudulent and entered into for the

9 purpose of obtaining immigration benefits. 

10 Since Maciejowski fails to raise a colorable constitutional

11 claim or question of law, we are without jurisdiction to review

12 the agency’s discretionary denial of relief. See 8 U.S.C.

13 § 1252(a)(2)(B); see also Guyadin, 449 F.3d at 468-69; Barco14 Sandoval, 516 F.3d at 40.

15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

16 DISMISSED. 

17 FOR THE COURT: 

18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

19

20

3