20-3457 He v. Garland BIA Sponzo, IJ A206 583 322 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 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 27th day of March, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 MYRNA PÉREZ, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 HUI HE, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-3457 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Aleksander Boleslaw Milch, Esq., 25 The Kasen Law Firm, PLLC, 26 Flushing, NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton Acting Assistant 29 Attorney General; Anthony C. 30 Payne, Assistant Director; Jeffery 31 R. Leist, Senior Litigation 1 Counsel; Jessica D. Strokus, Trial 2 Attorney; Kirsten Williams, Law 3 Clerk, Office of Immigration 4 Litigation, United States 5 Department of Justice, Washington, 6 DC. 7 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 GRANTED. 12 Petitioner Hui He, a native and citizen of the People’s 13 Republic of China, seeks review of a September 29, 2020, 14 decision of the BIA denying her motion to reconsider. In re 15 Hui He, No. A 206 583 322 (B.I.A. Sept. 29, 2020). We assume 16 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 17 procedural history. 18 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for 19 abuse of discretion. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 20 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). The BIA abuses its discretion where 21 it “provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs 22 from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or 23 contains only summary or conclusory statements; that is to 24 say, where the Board has acted in an arbitrary or capricious 2 1 manner.” Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 265 F.3d 83, 2 93 (2d Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). 3 The BIA offered two reasons for summarily dismissing He’s 4 appeal, which it reiterated in its decision declining to 5 reconsider that dismissal. First, it noted that He’s notice 6 of appeal was infirm. Immigration regulations provide that 7 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals