Jiang v. Whitaker
Jiang v. Whitaker
Opinion
16-3096 Jiang v. Whitaker BIA Poczter, IJ A205 445 792 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 TO 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 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 17th day of January, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNY CHIN, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JING ZHI JIANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-3096 17 NAC 18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: John Chang, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Principal Deputy 26 Assitant Attorney General; Carl 27 McIntyre, Assistant Director; 28 Kevin J. Conway, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of 31 Justice, Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DISMISSED.
5 Petitioner Jing Zhi Jiang, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 25,
7 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a January 22, 2015,
8 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying him asylum,
9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jing Zhi Jiang, No. A205 445
11 792 (B.I.A. Aug. 25, 2016), aff’g No. A205 445 792 (Immig.
12 Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 22, 2015). We assume the parties’
13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
14 in this case.
15 Because Jiang does not challenge the agency’s denial of
16 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, we have
17 reviewed the IJ’s and BIA’s decision only as to cancellation
18 of removal. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales,
426 F.3d 540, 541
19 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (noting that petitioner abandons
20 issues and claims not raised in his brief); see also Wangchuck
21 v. DHS,
448 F.3d 524, 528(2d Cir. 2006) (reviewing both
22 decisions “for the sake of completeness”). The only issue
2 1 before us is Jiang’s argument that he established that his
2 removal would cause his U.S. citizen wife and children
3 exceptional and extremely unusual hardship as required for
4 cancellation of removal.
5 Our jurisdiction to review the agency’s hardship
6 determination is limited to constitutional claims and
7 questions of law.
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D); Barco-
8 Sandoval v. Gonzales,
516 F.3d 35, 39-40(2d Cir. 2008).
9 When assessing jurisdiction, we “study the arguments
10 asserted . . . to determine, regardless of the rhetoric
11 employed in the petition, whether it merely quarrels over
12 the correctness of the factual findings or justification
13 for the discretionary choices, in which case the court
14 would lack jurisdiction, or whether it instead raises a
15 ‘constitutional claim’ or ‘question of law,’ in which case
16 the court could exercise jurisdiction to review those
17 particular issues.” Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
18
471 F.3d 315, 329(2d Cir. 2006).
19 Jiang argues that the agency erred in declining to credit
20 an expert medical opinion that his wife’s depression would
21 worsen if she accompanies Jiang to China. This argument
22 merely quarrels with the agency’s factual determination that
3 1 Jiang failed to establish that his wife suffers depression
2 because Jiang testified that his wife sought the opinion only
3 for purposes of his removal proceedings and had not otherwise
4 sought treatment.
5 Because Jiang does not raise a colorable constitutional
6 claim or question of law, we are without jurisdiction to
7 further review the agency’s decision. See 8 U.S.C.
8 §§ 1229b(b)(1)(D), 1252(a)(2)(B), (D).
9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
10 DISMISSED.
11 FOR THE COURT: 12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 13 Clerk of Court
4
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished