19-147 Rodas-Rosales v. Garland BIA A202 126 402/403 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 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 9th day of March, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 9 ROSEMARY S. POOLER , 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 GERSON ELISEO RODAS-ROSALES, 14 M.J.R.G., 15 Petitioners, 16 17 v. 19-147 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONERS: Jessica Swenson, Esq., Washington 25 Square Legal Services, Inc., 26 Immigrant Rights Clinic, New 27 York, NY. 28 29 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 30 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, 1 Assistant Director; Russell J.E. 2 Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel, 3 Office of Immigration Litigation, 4 United States Department of 5 Justice, Washington, DC. 6 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. 11 Petitioners Gerson Eliseo Rodas-Rosales and M.J.R.G., 12 natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek review of a December 13 20, 2018, decision of the BIA denying their motion to 14 reconsider and terminate removal proceedings. In re Gerson 15 Eliseo Rodas-Rosales, M.J.R.G., Nos. A202 126 402/403 (B.I.A. 16 Dec. 20, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 17 underlying facts and procedural history. 18 We review the BIA’s denial of reconsideration for abuse 19 of discretion. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 20 111 (2d Cir. 2006). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in 21 denying Petitioners’ motion to reconsider as untimely because 22 it was filed four months after the BIA’s denial of reopening 23 and one year after the underlying removal order. See 24 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B) (providing 30-day deadline for 2 1 motions to reconsider). 2 The BIA also did not err in rejecting Petitioners’ 3 argument that the time limit should be excused and their 4 removal proceedings terminated in light of Pereira v. 5 Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). Petitioners argued that 6 their notices to appear (“NTAs”) did not include a hearing 7 date and time and thus were insufficient …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals