19-2650 Lopez-Benitez v. Garland BIA A208 173 402 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 5th day of October, two thousand twenty- one. PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ YOSY ADALI LOPEZ-BENITEZ, Petitioner, v. 19-2650 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Perham Makabi, Esq., Kew Gardens, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director; Timothy G. Hayes, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Yosy Adali Lopez-Benitez, a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a July 23, 2019, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re Yosy Adali Lopez- Benitez, No. A208 173 402 (B.I.A. July 23, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Our review is limited to the BIA’s decision denying Lopez-Benitez’s motion to reconsider, which we review for abuse of discretion. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 173 (2d Cir. 2008); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89–90 (2d Cir. 2001). An abuse of discretion may be found where the BIA’s decision “provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where the Board has 2 acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233–34 (2d Cir. 2005). We find no abuse of discretion here. A “motion [to reconsider] shall specify the errors of law or fact in the previous order and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). A motion to reconsider “is a request that the Board reexamine its decision in light of additional legal arguments, a change of law, or perhaps an argument or aspect of the case which was overlooked.” Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). Lopez-Benitez asked the BIA to reconsider its …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals