Huang v. Garland ( 2021 )

20-299
Huang v. Garland
BIA
A077 998 197
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 United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 14th day of December, two thousand twenty-one.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 HON SONG HUANG, AKA HANG SONG
14 HUANG,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 20-299
18 NAC
19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, ACTING
20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent. 1
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, Esq., New
25 York, NY.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: John S. Hogan, Assistant
28 Director; Deitz P. Lefort, Trial
29 Attorney, Office of Immigration
1
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above.
1 Litigation, United States
2 Department of Justice, Washington,
3 DC.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 Petitioner Hon Song Huang, a native and citizen of the
10 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the BIA’s denial
11 of his motion to reopen. In re Hon Song Huang, No. A077 998
12 197 (B.I.A. Jan. 21, 2020). We assume the parties’
13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
14 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
15 abuse of discretion. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d
16 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). The BIA may deny a motion to
17 reopen if “the movant has not established a prima facie case
18 for the underlying substantive relief sought.” INS v. Abudu,
19 485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988). The BIA did not abuse its discretion
20 in denying Huang’s motion to reopen because he failed to
21 establish his prima facie eligibility for cancellation of
22 removal. See id.23 Huang failed to allege that his removal would cause his
2
1 U.S. citizen wife or children any specific hardship, much
2 less the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” that is
3 required for cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C.
4 § 1229b(b)(1)(D); see also In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N.
5 Dec. 56, 62 (B.I.A. 2001) (requiring applicant to show
6 hardship “substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that
7 would be expected when a close family member leaves this
8 country” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Because the
9 agency’s hardship finding is dispositive of his petition, we
10 do not reach Huang’s argument that his notice to appear was
11 ineffective to stop his accrual of physical presence. See
12 INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule
13 courts and agencies are not required to make findings on
14 issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results
15 they reach.”).
16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
17 DENIED. Huang’s pending motion for a stay of removal is
18 DENIED.
19 FOR THE COURT:
20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
21 Clerk of Court
3