Boedhoe v. Holder , 456 F. App'x 28 ( 2012 )

11-1931-ag
Boedhoe v. Holder
BIA
Straus, IJ
A074 975 306
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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United
3 States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on
4 the 18th day of January, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 SOEROEDJPERSAD BOEDHOE,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-1931-ag
17
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: James A. Welcome, Waterbury,
24 Connecticut.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney General;
27 David V. Bernal, Assistant Director;
28 Tiffany L. Walters, Trial Attorney,
29 Office of Immigration Litigation, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, D.C.
32
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
4 DISMISSED.
5 Petitioner Soeroedjpersad Boedhoe, a native of Suriname and
6 citizen of the Netherlands, seeks review of an April 8, 2011
7 order of the BIA, affirming the April 14, 2010 decision of
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Michael W. Straus, which denied his
9 applications for waivers of inadmissibility. In re
10 Soeroedjpersad Boedhoe, No. A074 975 306 (B.I.A. Apr. 8, 2011),
11 aff’g No. A074 975 306 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Apr. 14, 2010). We
12 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
13 procedural history in this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the
15 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v.
16 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Because Boedhoe is
17 challenging the denial of discretionary relief, we have
18 jurisdiction to review only constitutional claims and questions
19 of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D); Camara v. Dep’t of
20 Homeland Sec., 497 F.3d 121, 122-23 (2d Cir. 2007).
21 Boedhoe challenges the agency’s determination that he is
22 inadmissible under Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”)
23 § 212(a)(9)(C) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)) and that he
24 failed to establish his entitlement to a waiver of
25 inadmissibility under either INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(v) (codified at 8
2
1 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v)) or INA § 212(i) (codified at 8 U.S.C.
2 § 1182(i)). However, we lack jurisdiction to consider Boedhoe’s
3 challenge to the agency’s denial of his applications for waivers
4 of inadmissibility, which merely quarrel over the correctness of
5 the agency’s discretionary hardship determination. See Xiao Ji
6 Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 329 (2d Cir. 2006).
7 Although Boedhoe asserts that the agency committed numerous
8 legal errors in determining that he failed to show that the
9 denial of his admission to the United States would result in
10 extreme hardship to his lawful permanent resident spouse, we have
11 rejected attempts to frame disagreements over the agency’s
12 exercise of discretion as questions of law. See, e.g.,
13 Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 39-40 (2d Cir. 2008).
14 For example, while Boedhoe argues that the agency “failed to take
15 [his wife’s] significant medical issues into consideration,” and
16 that this “factor alone should lead the Court to remand,” the BIA
17 explicitly found that Boedhoe had “not established that [his
18 wife] would be unable to obtain adequate medical treatment in the
19 Netherlands.” In re Soeroedjpersad Boedhoe, No. A074 975 306
20 (B.I.A. Apr. 8, 2011), aff’g No. A074 975 306 (Immig. Ct.
21 Hartford Apr. 14, 2010). Similarly, Boedhoe argues that the
22 agency “was dismissive of [his] wife’s assistance of her father
23 while he suffers from a medical condition”; however, the agency
24 explicitly determined that “there is no evidence that her
3
1 remaining siblings in the United States could not provide
2 adequate care.” Id. Boedhoe also asserts that the IJ failed to
3 properly aggregate the hardship factors, but ignores the BIA’s
4 decision explicitly considering the hardship factors in the
5 aggregate. See id. Therefore, because Boedhoe merely quarrels
6 with the agency’s conclusion that a waiver was not warranted as a
7 matter of discretion, we lack jurisdiction to review his
8 arguments. See Xiao Ji Chen, 471 F.3d at 326-29.
9 Lastly, Boedhoe’s argument that the BIA erred by declining
10 to reach the IJ’s alternative inadmissibility finding under INA §
11 212(a)(9)(C), is without merit. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S.
12 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam).
13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
14 DISMISSED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
15 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
16 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is
17 DISMISSED as moot.
18 FOR THE COURT:
19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4