20-1085 Garcia-Henriquez v. Garland BIA A212 981 797/798 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 16th day of August, two thousand twenty-two. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, MYRNA PÉREZ, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ TANIA IVETTE GARCIA-HENRIQUEZ, J. S., L.-G., Petitioners,∗ v. 20-1085 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: Jennifer Oltarsh, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant ∗ The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above. Attorney General; Kohsei Ugumori, Senior Litigation Counsel; Nehal H. Kamani, Trial 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. Petitioners Tania Ivette Garcia-Henriquez and her minor son, J.S. L.-G., natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek review of a March 3, 2020, decision of the BIA denying their motion to reconsider the BIA’s prior order denying reopening. In re Tania Ivette Garcia-Henriquez, J.S. L.-G., Nos. A 212 981 797/798 (B.I.A. Mar. 3, 2020). 1 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We review the denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 1 Our review is limited to the BIA’s March 2020 decision denying the motion for reconsideration because petitioners did not petition for review of any prior decisions. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). 2 111 (2d Cir. 2006). “An abuse of discretion may be found . . . where the Board’s decision provides no rational explanation, 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.” Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted). A motion to reconsider “shall specify the errors of law or fact in the previous order and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration because …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals