21-6526 Campbell v. Garland BIA A215 929 051

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 2nd day of March, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 RAYON UINARDO CAMPBELL, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 21-6526 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Rayon Uinardo Campbell, pro se, 25 Poughkeepsie, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Principal 28 Deputy Assistant Attorney General; 1 Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant 2 Director; Elizabeth M. Dewar, 3 Trial Attorney, Office of 4 Immigration Litigation, United 5 States Department of Justice, 6 Washington, DC. 7 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

11 is DISMISSED.

12 Petitioner Rayon Uinardo Campbell, a native and citizen

13 of Jamaica, seeks review of a September 21, 2021, decision of

14 the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Rayon Uinardo

15 Campbell, No. A 215 929 051 (B.I.A. Sept. 21, 2021). We

16 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

17 procedural history.

18 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for

19 abuse of discretion. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,

,

20 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). The BIA abuses its discretion when

21 it “provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs

22 from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or

23 contains only summary or conclusory statements.” Qin Wen

24 Zheng v. Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2007) (quotation

25 marks omitted).

2 1 The BIA denied Campbell’s motion to reopen to apply for

2 voluntary departure because his evidence of reduced criminal

3 charges would not change the discretionary determination that

4 he did not merit voluntary departure. See INS v. Abudu, 485

5

, 104–05 (1988) (“[I]n cases in which the ultimate

6 grant of relief is discretionary . . . , the BIA may leap

7 ahead . . . over the two threshold concerns (prima facie case

8 and new evidence/reasonable explanation), and simply

9 determine that even if they were met, the movant would not be

10 entitled to the discretionary grant of relief.”). Our

11 jurisdiction to consider a motion to reopen tied to the grant

12 of discretionary relief is limited to constitutional claims

13 and colorable questions of law. Juras v. Garland,

53, 61 (2d Cir. 2021) (holding that jurisdiction to review

15 motions to reopen tied to discretionary relief is limited

16 because more expansive review would “provide an improper

17 backdoor” to challenging a removal order (quotation marks

18 omitted)); see also

(a)(2)(B), (D).

19 Campbell has not raised a constitutional claim or

20 colorable question of law. Campbell does not have a

21 colorable claim that the BIA engaged in improper fact-

3 1 finding, as the BIA was required to address the new evidence

2 he presented and was allowed to determine whether it would

3 change the exercise of discretion. See Abudu, 485 U.S. at

4 104–05. In addressing whether a favorable exercise of

5 discretion is warranted, the agency may consider a criminal

6 complaint, and Campbell did not dispute the allegations that

7 he was involved, only the level of responsibility he had for

8 the victim’s injuries and that he had a gun. See 8 U.S.C.

9 § 1229a(c)(4) (placing burden on applicant to show favorable

10 exercise of discretion is warranted); Padmore v. Holder, 609

, 69 (2d Cir. 2010) (“We do not challenge the Board’s

12 authority to review police reports and complaints, even if

13 containing hearsay and not a part of the formal record of

14 conviction because such documents are appropriately admitted

15 for the purposes of considering an application for

16 discretionary relief.” (quotation marks omitted)). “We lack

17 jurisdiction to review any claim that an IJ or the BIA erred

18 in weighing the factors relevant to the grant or denial of”

19 discretionary relief. Guyadin v. Gonzales,

,

20 468-69 (2d Cir. 2006).

21

22 4 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

2 DISMISSED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED

3 and stays VACATED.

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

5