20-749 Delgado Quinde v. Garland BIA Laforest, IJ A206 065 777

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 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 27th day of May, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 8 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 PABLO ENRIQUE DELGADO QUINDE, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-749 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Borja, Esq., Borja Law 24 Firm, P.C., Jackson Heights, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Anthony P. 28 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 1 Timothy Bo Stanton, Trial 2 Attorney, Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 DC. 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

10 is DENIED.

11 Petitioner Pablo Enrique Delgado Quinde, a native and

12 citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a January 31, 2020,

13 decision of the BIA affirming a June 10, 2019, decision of an

14 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his motion to reopen. In

15 re Pablo Enrique Delgado Quinde, No. A206 065 777 (B.I.A.

16 Jan. 31, 2020), aff’g No. A206 065 777 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City

17 June 10, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

18 underlying facts and procedural history.

19 We generally review the BIA’s denial of a motion to

20 reopen for abuse of discretion. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,

21

(2d Cir. 2008). The BIA may deny a

22 motion to reopen if “the movant has not established a prima

23 facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought.”

24 INS v. Abudu,

(1988). Here, the BIA 2 1 concluded that Quinde had not established his prima facie

2 eligibility for cancellation of removal and, thus, could not

3 show the prejudice required to state a claim of ineffective

4 assistance of counsel. The BIA relied solely on the fact

5 that Quinde had not submitted evidence that his removal would

6 cause his U.S. citizen child “exceptional and extremely

7 unusual hardship” as required for cancellation of removal.

8 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). Quinde has abandoned review

9 of the BIA’s decision because he does not challenge this

10 hardship finding. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales,

540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (petitioner abandons

12 issues and claims not raised in his brief). Moreover, as the

13 BIA found, Quinde did not submit any evidence regarding

14 hardship to his U.S. citizen son.

15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

16 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

17 stays VACATED.

18 FOR THE COURT: 19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 20 Clerk of Court

3