20-3222 Cervantes-Nieto v. Garland BIA A087 576 821 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held 2 at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New 3 York, on the 14th day of December, two thousand twenty-two. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 ROBERT D. SACK, 7 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 8 EUNICE C. LEE, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 GERMAN EDUARDO CERVANTES-NIETO, 13 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-3222 17 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: John C. Barrera, Barrera Legal Group, Nampa, ID. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney 27 General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, 28 Andrew B. Insenga, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United States Department of 30 Justice, Washington, DC. 31 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a decision of the Board of 2 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the 3 petition for review is GRANTED and that the BIA decision is VACATED and REMANDED for 4 reconsideration in accordance with the following. 5 Petitioner German Eduardo Cervantes-Nieto, a native and citizen of Peru, seeks review of 6 an August 26, 2020, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reissue its February 2020 decision. 7 In re Cervantes-Nieto, No. A087 576 821 (B.I.A. Aug. 26, 2020). We assume the parties’ 8 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 9 Our review is limited to the BIA’s denial of Cervantes-Nieto’s motion to reissue the 10 February 2020 decision because the petition is timely only as to that decision. See Ke Zhen Zhao 11 v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 265 F.3d 83, 89–90 (2d Cir. 2001). We review the denial of a motion to 12 reissue for abuse of discretion. See Ping Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 502 F.3d 73, 75 (2d Cir. 2007) 13 (per curiam). “The BIA abuses its discretion if its decision provides no rational explanation, 14 inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only 15 summary or conclusory statements.” Id. “The BIA also abuses its discretion when it fails to 16 consider the facts of record relevant to the motion.” Id. 17 In rejecting Cervantes-Nieto’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim as a basis for 18 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals