Court Opinion

ID: 9362952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 16:00:39.142793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:26.817695
License: Public Domain

22-6070
     Badu v. Garland
                                                                                    BIA
                                                                               Ruehle, IJ
                                                                            A074 971 262

                            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
 3   Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
 4   13th day of January, two thousand twenty-three.
 5
 6   PRESENT:
 7             GUIDO CALABRESI,
 8             DENNY CHIN,
 9             EUNICE C. LEE,
10                  Circuit Judges.
11   _____________________________________
12
13   GABRIEL BADU,
14
15                           Petitioner,
16
17                     v.                                         22-6070
18
19   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES
20   ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21
22                  Respondent.
23   _____________________________________
24
25   FOR PETITIONER:                   Gary J. Yerman, The Yerman Group, LLC,
26                                     New York, NY.
27
28   FOR RESPONDENT:                       Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy
29                                         Assistant Attorney General; John S.
30                                         Hogan, Assistant Director; Christina
31                                         R. Zeidan, Trial Attorney, Office of
1                                Immigration Litigation, United States
2                                Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
3
4         UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

7    DISMISSED.

8         Petitioner Gabriel Badu, a native and citizen of Ghana, seeks

9    review of a January 19, 2022 decision of the BIA, affirming a March

10   19, 2019 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his

11   applications for a waiver of removability and cancellation of

12   removal.     In re Gabriel Badu, No. A074 971 262 (B.I.A. Jan. 19,

13   2022), aff’g No. A074 971 262 (Immigr. Ct. Buffalo Mar. 19, 2019).

14   We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

15   procedural history.

16        We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions.       See

17   Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.

18   2006).     Badu has abandoned any challenge to the agency’s denial

19   of cancellation of removal by not raising that claim in his brief,

20   and thus the only form of relief before us is the denial of his

21   request for a fraud waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H). See

22   Ahmed v. Holder, 624 F.3d 150, 153 (2d Cir. 2010) (per curiam).

23   Our jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of a discretionary

24   fraud waiver is limited to “colorable constitutional claims or

25   questions of law.”     Ahmed, 624 F.3d at 154 (quoting Bugayong v.
                                      2
1    INS, 442 F.3d 67, 68 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam)); see also 8

2    U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), (D).             Badu raises no colorable claim

3    over which we have jurisdiction.

4         Under § 1227(a)(1)(H), the agency may waive a non-citizen’s

5    misrepresentations if he is the parent of a U.S. citizen and was

6    otherwise admissible.        If the non-citizen is statutorily eligible

7    for a waiver, the agency must decide whether to exercise discretion

8    favorably.    In re Tijam, 22 I. & N. Dec. 408, 412 (B.I.A. 1998).

9    In doing so, the agency balances the non-citizen’s “undesirability

10   as a permanent resident with the social and humane considerations

11   present to determine whether a grant of relief is in the best

12   interests of this country.”          Id.       Negative factors include the

13   nature of the fraud or bad character of the non-citizen; positive

14   factors include the non-citizen’s ties to the United States or

15   “evidence    of   hardship    to   the   [non-citizen]    or   her   family    if

16   deportation occurs.”     Id.

17        Badu     argues    that       the       agency   mischaracterized        his

18   misrepresentations in the immigration context as a pattern of

19   fraud, failed to account for his remorse, and improperly noted

20   misrepresentations made outside the immigration context.              Although

21   the agency errs as a matter of law when it “totally overlook[s]”

22   or “seriously mischaracterize[s]” important facts relating to the

23   discretionary determination, Mendez v. Holder, 566 F.3d 316, 323

                                              3
1    (2d    Cir.   2009)     (per    curiam),    Badu’s    arguments    are       “best

2    characterized . . . as a disagreement with the outcome of a lawful

3    exercise of discretion” over which we lack “jurisdiction,” Ahmed,

4    624 F.3d at 154.

5           Badu entered the United States in 1991 by presenting himself

6    as a citizen of Liberia whose family members had been killed.                  The

7    agency did not err in finding a pattern of misrepresentations

8    following     this   initial    fraud   because    Badu   continued     to    make

9    misrepresentations for years:           He applied for asylum using his

10   false Liberian identity one month after his entry; he failed to

11   disclose his Liberian identity when applying for adjustment of

12   status as a Ghanaian in 1995; and he signed his fraudulent asylum

13   application at an asylum interview in 1998.               See Tijam, 22 I. &

14   N. Dec. at 415–17; see also INS v. Yueh-Shaio Yang, 519 U.S. 26,

15   32 (1996) (“It is assuredly rational, and therefore lawful, for

16   [the Attorney General] to distinguish aliens . . . who engage in

17   a pattern of immigration fraud from [non-citizens] who commit a

18   single, isolated act of misrepresentation.”).

19          Further,      contrary    to     Badu’s     arguments,     the    agency

20   acknowledged his expression of remorse, reasonably noted his use

21   of    his   false    identity   outside     the   immigration   context,      and

22   considered his lengthy ties and residence in the United States as

23   positive factors.       See Tijam, 22 I. & N. Dec. at 412.         The BIA did

                                             4
1    not engage in improper factfinding because it agreed with the IJ

2    that Badu’s misrepresentations constituted a pattern of fraud and

3    noted, as the IJ had, that Badu continued to pursue his false

4    asylum application after he adjusted status using a different

5    identity.    See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i) (“Facts determined by

6    the immigration judge, including findings as to the credibility of

7    testimony, shall be reviewed only to determine whether the findings

8    of the immigration judge are clearly erroneous.”).

9         Badu has not raised a colorable constitutional claim or

10   question of law regarding the agency’s denial of a fraud waiver,

11   and we lack jurisdiction to further review the agency’s factfinding

12   and balancing of factors.        See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D);

13   Ahmed, 624 F.3d at 153–54; Argueta v. Holder, 617 F.3d 109, 113

14   (2d Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (holding “argument that the IJ balanced

15   improperly    those   factors   that     the   IJ   could   consider”      was

16   unreviewable).

17        For    the   foregoing   reasons,   the   petition     for   review   is

18   DISMISSED.    All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

19   stays VACATED.

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

                                         5