19-4213 Bustillo-Veliz v. Garland BIA Poczter, IJ A200 891 107 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 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 20th day of December, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 REENA RAGGI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MARLA YULISSA BUSTILLO-VELIZ, 14 AKA MARLA LUISA BUSTILLO-VELIZ, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-4213 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Bruno Joseph Bembi, Esq., 25 Hempstead, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 28 Assistant Attorney General; 1 Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Assistant 2 Director; Jessica A. Dawgert, 3 Senior Litigation Counsel, Office 4 of Immigration Litigation, United 5 States Department of Justice, 6 Washington, DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. 11 Petitioner Marla Yulissa Bustillo-Veliz (“Bustillo”), a 12 native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a November 13 29, 2019, decision of the BIA affirming a May 17, 2018, 14 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her motion to 15 reopen her removal proceedings. In re Marla Yulissa Bustillo- 16 Veliz, No. A 200 891 107 (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2019), aff’g No. A 17 200 891 107 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 17, 2018). We assume 18 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 19 procedural history. 20 Because the BIA summarily affirmed the IJ’s decision, we 21 have reviewed the IJ’s decision as the final agency 22 determination. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 23 (2d Cir. 2008). We review the denial of a motion to reopen 24 for abuse of discretion. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 2 1 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). 2 We distinguish between motions to reopen to apply for 3 relief from removal based on new evidence and motions to 4 rescind an in absentia removal order. Alrefae v. Chertoff, 5 471 F.3d 353, 357 (2d Cir. 2006). A motion to reopen 6 generally must be filed no later than 90 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals