20-2954-ag Lopez-Cabrera v. Garland 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 3 City of New York, on the 3rd day of November, two thousand twenty-one. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 REENA RAGGI, 7 GERARD E. LYNCH, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 GONZALO LOPEZ-CABRERA, 13 Petitioner, 14 15 v. 20-2954-ag 16 17 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 18 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 Respondent. 20 _____________________________________ 21 22 FOR PETITIONER: Stephen K. Tills, Esq., Orchard Park, NY 23 24 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney 2 General, Claire L. Workman, Senior Litigation 3 Counsel, Scott M. Marconda, Trial Attorney, 4 Office of Immigration Litigation, United 5 States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 7 Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 8 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Gonzalo Lopez-Cabrera, a citizen of Mexico, asks us to review an 10 August 5, 2020 decision of the BIA affirming a September 5, 2018 decision of an 11 Immigration Judge (IJ), which denied his motions to terminate or continue his 12 proceedings and ordered his removal. In re Lopez-Cabrera, No. A 206 864 611 13 (B.I.A. Aug. 5, 2020), aff’g No. A 206 864 611 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Sept. 5, 2018). In 14 this petition, Lopez-Cabrera challenges both the agency’s denial of his motion to 15 terminate and its refusal to grant a continuance of his proceedings. We assume 16 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the record of prior 17 proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to deny 18 the petition. 19 I. 20 Lopez-Cabrera principally contends that the agency erred in denying his 2 1 request for termination of proceedings in light of Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2 2105 (2018). In Pereira, the Supreme Court held that the Immigration and 3 Nationality Act unambiguously requires that a notice to appear (NTA) include a 4 hearing time and place in order to trigger the “stop-time rule.” Id. at 2113–20. 5 “Under that rule, any period of . . . continuous physical presence in the United 6 States shall be deemed to end . . . …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals