20-1105 Diarrassouba v. Garland BIA A093 429 612 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 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 7th day of July, two thousand twenty-two. PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ OUSMANE DIARRASSOUBA, AKA OUSMANG DIARRA SSOUBA, Petitioner, v. 20-1105 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Jessica M. Greenberg, Esq., Division of Immigrant and Refugee Services, Catholic Charities Community Services, Archdiocese of New York, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel; Regina Byrd, Attorney, 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 Ousmane Diarrassouba, a native and citizen of Côte d’Ivoire, seeks review of a March 2, 2020 decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Ousmane Diarrassouba, No. A093 429 612 (B.I.A. Mar. 2, 2020). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Our review is limited to the BIA’s decision denying Diarrassouba’s motion to reopen, because he did not timely petition for review of the BIA’s underlying decisions. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89–90 (2d Cir. 2001). We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Id. at 93; Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). An abuse of discretion may be found where the BIA’s decision “provides no rational explanation, 2 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 acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233–34 (2d Cir. 2005) (quotation marks omitted). A noncitizen may file one motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision is rendered. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). It is undisputed that Diarrassouba’s motion was untimely, as the BIA dismissed his appeal in June 2017, and he did not file his motion to reopen until …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals