Ajmeri v. Blanche

── Ajmeri v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General 25-319 Ajmeri v. Blanche BIA Thompson, IJ A041-487-876 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. 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 27th day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, BETH ROBINSON, Circuit Judges. JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge. * _____________________________________ RAKESH RASIKLAL AJMERI, Petitioner, *Judge Jed S. Rakoff, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.  v. No. 25-319 TODD BLANCHE, Acting United States Attorney General, Respondent. ____________________________________ For Petitioner: JUDY RESNICK, Law Office of Judy Resnick, Far Rockaway, NY. For Appellee: SPENCER SCHUCARD (Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General; Keith I. McManus, Assistant Director; Jessica E. Burns, Senior Litigation Counsel, on the brief), Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Rakesh Rasiklal Ajmeri seeks review of a January 23, 2025 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming a November 19, 2019 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) that (i) found Ajmeri to be ineligible for a waiver of removability under section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c), and (ii) ordered that he be removed. In his petition for review, Ajmeri challenges the BIA’s conclusion that he was ineligible for a section 212(c) 2 waiver, and the basis on which he was initially considered removable under the INA. He also raises constitutional due-process claims. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on review, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision. Where, as here, the BIA “[does] not expressly adopt the IJ’s decision,” but its opinion “closely tracks the IJ’s reasoning,” we will review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, Xia Fan Huang v. Holder, 591 F.3d 124, 127 (2d Cir. 2010), and we evaluate questions of law,