20-2570 Castro-Lopez v. Garland BIA McCarthy, IJ A202 027 136 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 4th day of April, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 EUNICE C. LEE, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 SONIA LILIAN CASTRO-LOPEZ, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-2570 18 NAC 19 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, 27 NY. 28 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Brianne Whelan 3 Cohen, Senior Litigation Counsel; 4 Andrea N. Gevas, Trial Attorney, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 United States Department of 7 Justice, Washington, DC. 8 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 12 is DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction and DENIED in 13 part. 14 Petitioner Sonia Lilian Castro-Lopez, a native and 15 citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a July 28, 2020 decision 16 of the BIA affirming an August 20, 2019 decision of an 17 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her motion for the IJ to 18 reissue its April 30, 2018 removal order with a current date 19 so that she could timely appeal it to the BIA. See In re 20 Sonia Lilian Castro-Lopez, No. A202 027 136 (B.I.A. July 28, 21 2020), aff’g No. A202 027 136 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 20, 22 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 23 facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal. 24 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions 25 denying Castro-Lopez’s motion to reissue. See Wangchuck v. 26 Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). “A 2 1 motion to reissue is treated as a motion to reopen,” which we 2 review for abuse of discretion. Ping Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 3 502 F.3d 73, 75 (2d Cir. 2007). 4 It is undisputed that Castro-Lopez’s motion to reissue 5 was untimely because she filed it in May 2019 — more than one 6 year after …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals