Court Opinion

ID: 9905793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 16:01:16.238795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:53.269792
License: Public Domain

22-6494
     Barrientos Palacios v. Garland

                             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 the Second Circuit,
 2   held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
 3   New York, on the 30th day of November, two thousand twenty-three.
 4
 5   PRESENT:
 6               GERARD E. LYNCH,
 7               MICHAEL H. PARK,
 8               EUNICE C. LEE
 9                     Circuit Judges.
10   _____________________________________
11
12   Leonel Arnoldo Barrientos Palacios,
13   Mildred Yojana Orellana Tejada,
14
15                               Petitioners,
16
17                      v.                                           22-6494
18
19   Merrick B. Garland,
20   United States Attorney General,
21
22                     Respondent.
23   _____________________________________
24
25   FOR PETITIONERS:                           Usman B. Ahmad, Long Island City, NY.
26
27   FOR RESPONDENT:                            Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant,
28                                              Attorney General; Dawn S. Conrad, Senior
29                                              Litigation Counsel; A. Ashley Arthur, Trial
30                                              Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United
31                                              States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
32
 1          UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration

 2   Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the

 3   petition for review is DISMISSED.

 4          Petitioners Barrientos Palacios and Orellana Tejada (“Petitioners”), natives and citizens of

 5   Guatemala, seek review of a September 19, 2022 decision of the BIA affirming a December 18,

 6   2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their application for cancellation of removal

 7   for certain non-permanent residents. In re Barrientos Palacios, Nos. A099 089 711/205 218 832

 8   (B.I.A. Sept. 19, 2022), aff’g No. A099 089 711 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Dec. 18, 2018). We assume

 9   the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

10          We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Chen v. Gonzales,

11   417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). When applying for cancellation of removal, Petitioners bear

12   the burden to prove eligibility for relief from removal and to establish that they merit a favorable

13   exercise of discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(A). Statutory eligibility for cancellation of

14   removal requires that Petitioners show, among other elements, that their “removal would result in

15   exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to their lawful permanent resident or U.S. citizen

16   spouse, parent, or child. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The BIA concluded that Petitioners did

17   not establish the requisite hardship to their qualifying relatives. The BIA also declined to exercise

18   its discretion in favor of Petitioners. It noted that it had considered Petitioners’ “favorable

19   equities,” including Orellana Tejada’s lack of criminal history, Barrientos Palacios’s steady

20   employment history, and both Petitioners’ support to their children, but “the dearth of candor, and

21   the gravity of the allegations of sexual abuse of a minor against [Barrientos Palacios], weigh

22   against a favorable exercise of discretion.”

                                                      2
 1           Our jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal is limited to

 2   colorable legal or constitutional error. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); Barco-Sandoval v.

 3   Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 40-41 (2d Cir. 2007). “[W]e are obliged to dismiss any claim [] that

 4   essentially disputes the correctness of the agency’s factfinding or the wisdom of its exercise of

 5   discretion.” Hernandez v. Garland, 66 F. 4th 94, 101 (2d Cir. 2023) (alteration in original)

 6   (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

 7           Here, the BIA gave two independent reasons for denying cancellation of removal: (1) that

 8   Petitioners failed to demonstrate the required hardship to their U.S.-citizen children, and (2) that

 9   they did not merit cancellation as a matter of discretion.

10           Petitioners do not challenge the latter conclusion. Thus, we deem any such challenge

11   abandoned.     See Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding claim

12   abandoned when it was not raised in petitioner’s brief). The decision to deny cancellation as a

13   matter of discretion is an independent and dispositive ground for denying this form of relief. See

14   8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (stating that the agency “may” cancel removal of an applicant who satisfies

15   eligibility requirements); Rodriguez v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 60, 62 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[A]ssuming an

16   alien satisfies the statutory requirements, the Attorney General in his discretion decides whether

17   to grant or deny relief.”).

18           Moreover, that decision is a matter of discretion that we lack jurisdiction to review. See

19   8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Rodriguez, 451 F.3d at 62 (stating that “we have no

20   jurisdiction to review the . . . discretionary determinations concerning either cancellation of

21   removal or adjustment of status”).   Because the agency’s discretionary denial of relief, which we

                                                        3
1   may not review and which in any event Petitioners do not challenge, is dispositive of their

2   application, we need not consider their challenge to the agency’s decision on eligibility.

3          For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED.

4
5                                                 FOR THE COURT:
6                                                 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

                                                     4