18-3004
Amarasinghe v. Barr
BIA
Segal, IJ
A088 833 135
A093 444 459
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
Square, in the City of New York, on the 23rd day of October, two thousand
twenty.
PRESENT:
ROBERT D. SACK,
RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,
STEVEN J. MENASHI,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
PATHIRANAGE DON DARSHANA RU
AMARASINGHE, SAROJA NILUKSHI
KURUNERU,
Petitioners,
v. 18-3004
WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONERS: Pathiranage Don Darshana Ru Amarasinghe;
Saroja Nilukshi Kuruneru, pro se, Staten Island,
NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney
General; Nancy E. Friedman, Senior Litigation
Counsel; Brooke Marie Maurer, Trial Attorney,
Office of Immigration Litigation, United States
Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a decision of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
and DECREED that the petition for review is DISMISSED.
Petitioners Pathiranage Don Darshana Ru Amarasinghe and Saroja Nilukshi
Kuruneru, natives and citizens of Sri Lanka, seek review of a BIA decision
affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their application for cancellation
of removal. In re Pathiranage Don Darshana Ru Amarasinghe, Saroja Nilukshi
Kuruneru, Nos. A088 833 135, A093 444 459 (B.I.A. Sept. 27, 2018), aff’g Nos. A088
833 135, A093 444 459 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 29, 2017). We assume the
parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
2
We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA and address only
the dispositive hardship determination. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Noncitizens, such as Petitioners, who are not
permanent residents may have their removal cancelled if they meet presence and
character requirements and they “establish[] that removal would result in
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to [their] spouse, parent, or child,
who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The hardship to a qualifying relative “must
be substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that would be expected when a
close family member leaves this country.” In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec.
56, 62 (BIA 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our jurisdiction to review
the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal based on an applicant’s failure to
satisfy the hardship requirement is limited to constitutional claims and questions
of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D); Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 39–40
(2d Cir. 2008). We review such claims de novo. Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772
(2d Cir. 2009).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s hardship determination because
Petitioners raise no constitutional claims or questions of law. Instead, Petitioners
“merely summarize[] [their] interpretation of the evidence and express [their]
3
disagreement” with the agency’s findings. Arguello v. Lynch, 614 F. App’x 19, 20–
21 (2d Cir. 2015). Such “quarrel[s] about fact-finding or the exercise of discretion”
are insufficient to establish a colorable legal or constitutional claim. Xiao Ji Chen
v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 330 (2d Cir. 2006).
In some cases, we have characterized factual errors as questions of law
where the agency “totally overlook[s]” or “seriously mischaracterize[s]” material
facts. Mendez v. Holder, 566 F.3d 316, 323 (2d Cir. 2009). The agency did not do
so in this case. The agency assumed the validity of Petitioners’ son’s asthma
diagnosis and medical records. But the agency was not required to explicitly
consider evidence of the number of asthma deaths in Sri Lanka because that
evidence was of limited relevance without comparative evidence showing that
Petitioners’ son would be unable to obtain treatment for his asthma in Sri Lanka
as has been done in the United States. See Zhi Yun Gao v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 86, 87
(2d Cir. 2007) (“[T]he BIA need not expressly parse or refute on the record each
individual argument or piece of evidence offered by the petitioner as long as it has
given reasoned consideration to the petition, and made adequate findings.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)); Xiao Ji Chen, 471 F.3d at 336 n.17 (presuming
that the agency “has taken into account all of the evidence before [it], unless the
record compellingly suggests otherwise”). The agency acknowledged
4
Petitioners’ testimony that in Sri Lanka, their son may have to use different
medications and may only have access to a nebulizer in a medical setting rather
than at home, but concluded that Petitioners did not meet their burden of showing
that a difference in treatment established the requisite hardship.
Accordingly, because Petitioners fail to raise a colorable constitutional claim
or question of law, the petition for review is DISMISSED. The motion to stay
removal pending resolution of the petition for review is DENIED as moot.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
Clerk of Court
5