JING ZHI JIANG v. WHITAKER (2019)

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Jing Zhi Jiang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 25, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a January 22, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jing Zhi Jiang, No. A205 445 792 (B.I.A. Aug. 25, 2016), aff’g No. A205 445 792 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 22, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Because Jiang does not challenge the agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, we have reviewed the IJ’s and BIA’s decision only as to cancellation of removal. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (noting that petitioner abandons issues and claims not raised in his brief); see also Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006) (reviewing both decisions “for the sake of completeness”). The only issue before us is Jiang’s argument that he established that his removal would cause his U.S. citizen wife and children exceptional and extremely unusual hardship as required for cancellation of removal.

Our jurisdiction to review the agency’s hardship determination 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). When assessing jurisdiction, we “study the arguments asserted ․ to determine, regardless of the rhetoric employed in the petition, whether it merely quarrels over the correctness of the factual findings or justification for the discretionary choices, in which case the court would lack jurisdiction, or whether it instead raises a ‘constitutional claim’ or ‘question of law,’ in which case the court could exercise jurisdiction to review those particular issues.” Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 329 (2d Cir. 2006).

Jiang argues that the agency erred in declining to credit an expert medical opinion that his wife’s depression would worsen if she accompanies Jiang to China. This argument merely quarrels with the agency’s factual determination that Jiang failed to establish that his wife suffers depression because Jiang testified that his wife sought the opinion only for purposes of his removal proceedings and had not otherwise sought treatment.

Because Jiang does not raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law, we are without jurisdiction to further review the agency’s decision. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(1)(D), 1252(a)(2)(B), (D).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED.