19-3650 Olabisi v. Garland BIA Loprest, IJ A043 355 830 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 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 DAVID OLUWADAMILOL OLABISI, AKA 14 OLUDAMOLA OLUBUNMI ONANUGA, AKA 15 NUGA ROBERT SAMUEL, AKA JOSEPH 16 SONNY DARLING, AKA DAVID O. 17 OLAEIS, AKA OLUBUNMI ONANUGA, 18 Petitioner, 19 20 v. 19-3650 21 NAC 22 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 23 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 24 Respondent. 25 _____________________________________ 26 27 FOR PETITIONER: Rakhvir Dhanoa, Esq., New York, 28 NY. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Cindy S. 3 Ferrier, Assistant Director; Sunah 4 Lee, Trial Attorney, Office of 5 Immigration Litigation, United 6 States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, DC. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioner David Oluwadamilol Olabisi, a native and 13 citizen of Nigeria, seeks review of an October 10, 2019, 14 decision of the BIA affirming a July 17, 2018, decision of an 15 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his motion to rescind his 16 removal order and reopen removal proceedings. In re David 17 Oluwadamilol Olabisi, No. A043 355 830 (B.I.A. Oct. 10, 2019), 18 aff’g No. A043 355 830 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 17, 2018). 19 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 20 and procedural history. 21 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision denying Olabisi’s 22 motion because the BIA affirmed that decision without 23 opinion. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d 24 Cir. 2008). We review the IJ’s decision for abuse of 25 discretion. See Maghradze v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 150, 152–53 2 1 (2d Cir. 2006). We find no abuse of discretion in the IJ’s 2 conclusion that Olabisi failed to exercise due diligence in 3 moving to rescind. 4 An order of removal entered in absentia “may be rescinded 5 only . . . (i) upon a motion to reopen filed within 180 days 6 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals