Sreang Sea v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Sreang Sea v. Eric Holder, Jr.

567 F. App'x 551

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 11, 2014

Docket10-72139

StatusUnpublished

This text of 567 F. App'x 551 (Sreang Sea v. Eric Holder, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sreang Sea v. Eric Holder, Jr., 567 F. App'x 551 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Sreang Sea, a native and citizen of Cambodia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying his application for asylum and his application for cancellation of removal. We deny the petition for review.

The BIA agreed with the Immigration Judge that Sea had abandoned his asylum application after he failed to meet a filing deadline. The IJ was well within her discretion to pretermit Sea’s asylum application as having been abandoned under these circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) (“The Immigration Judge may set ... time limits for the filing of applications and related documents and responses thereto, if any. If an application or document is not filed within the time set by the Immigration Judge, the opportunity to file that application or document shall be deemed waived.”).

Second, Sea argues that the IJ took an overly restrictive interpretation of “extreme cruelty” in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i)(I) and thus erred in denying his application for cancellation of *552 removal. The court reviews questions of law and statutory interpretation in immigration proceedings de novo. Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1202-03 (9th Cir.2011). Sea’s evidence that he was subjected to extreme cruelty (his wife ignoring him, going out with other men, and making hurtful comments) paints a picture of marital misconduct and “unkindness,” as the IJ held, but not of the “extreme cruelty” contemplated by the statute for purposes of cancellation of removal. See Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 840 (9th Cir. 2003) (“extreme cruelty” is not “mere unkindness” and must rather to rise to a level of an “extreme concept of domestic violence” in which a spouse engaged in “manipulative tactics aimed at ensuring [his or her] dominance and control”). By failing to meet the threshold for extreme cruelty, Sea is ineligible for cancellation of removal. Lopez-Umanzor v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir.2005).

The petition for review is DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Sreang Sea, a native and citizen of Cambodia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying his application for asylum and his application for cancellation of removal. We deny the petition for review.

The BIA agreed with the Immigration Judge that Sea had abandoned his asylum application after he failed to meet a filing deadline. The IJ was well within her discretion to pretermit Sea’s asylum application as having been abandoned under these circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) (“The Immigration Judge may set ... time limits for the filing of applications and related documents and responses thereto, if any. If an application or document is not filed within the time set by the Immigration Judge, the opportunity to file that application or document shall be deemed waived.”).

Second, Sea argues that the IJ took an overly restrictive interpretation of “extreme cruelty” in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i)(I) and thus erred in denying his application for cancellation of *552 removal. The court reviews questions of law and statutory interpretation in immigration proceedings de novo. Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1202-03 (9th Cir.2011). Sea’s evidence that he was subjected to extreme cruelty (his wife ignoring him, going out with other men, and making hurtful comments) paints a picture of marital misconduct and “unkindness,” as the IJ held, but not of the “extreme cruelty” contemplated by the statute for purposes of cancellation of removal. See Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 840 (9th Cir. 2003) (“extreme cruelty” is not “mere unkindness” and must rather to rise to a level of an “extreme concept of domestic violence” in which a spouse engaged in “manipulative tactics aimed at ensuring [his or her] dominance and control”). By failing to meet the threshold for extreme cruelty, Sea is ineligible for cancellation of removal. Lopez-Umanzor v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir.2005).

The petition for review is DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

567 F. App'x 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sreang-sea-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack