Pena v. Mukasey

Second Circuit

Pena v. Mukasey

260 F. App'x 341

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 15, 2008

DocketNo. 07-1271-ag

StatusPublished

This text of 260 F. App'x 341 (Pena v. Mukasey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pena v. Mukasey, 260 F. App'x 341 (2d Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Rafael Pena, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, seeks review of a February 27, 2007 order of the BIA denying Pena’s motion to remand and affirming the June 20, 2005 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Helen J. Sichel denying his application for cancellation of removal. In re Rafael Pena, No. A 75 792 098 (B.I.A. Feb. 27, 2007), aff'g No. A 75 792 098 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City, June 20, 2005). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Pena challenges the IJ’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal for failure to establish “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his United States citizen children. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Pena claims that the IJ’s credibility finding was based on speculation, that the IJ failed to give adequate weight to Pena’s medical condition, and that the IJ’s analysis of Pena’s good moral character was cursory. We lack jurisdiction to consider Pena’s challenge and must dismiss the petition for review because Pena’s arguments do not raise a colorable question of law but only quarrel with the IJ’s discretionary and factual findings. See id. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 132, 135-36 (2d Cir. 2007); Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 329 (2d Cir.2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED. As we have completed our review, petitioner’s pending motion for a stay of removal is DISMISSED as moot.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Rafael Pena, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, seeks review of a February 27, 2007 order of the BIA denying Pena’s motion to remand and affirming the June 20, 2005 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Helen J. Sichel denying his application for cancellation of removal. In re Rafael Pena, No. A 75 792 098 (B.I.A. Feb. 27, 2007), aff'g No. A 75 792 098 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City, June 20, 2005). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Pena challenges the IJ’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal for failure to establish “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his United States citizen children. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Pena claims that the IJ’s credibility finding was based on speculation, that the IJ failed to give adequate weight to Pena’s medical condition, and that the IJ’s analysis of Pena’s good moral character was cursory. We lack jurisdiction to consider Pena’s challenge and must dismiss the petition for review because Pena’s arguments do not raise a colorable question of law but only quarrel with the IJ’s discretionary and factual findings. See id. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 132, 135-36 (2d Cir. 2007); Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 329 (2d Cir.2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED. As we have completed our review, petitioner’s pending motion for a stay of removal is DISMISSED as moot.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 F. App'x 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pena-v-mukasey-ca2-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack