17-521 Assad v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A087 146 447 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 TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESsENTED 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 28th day of August, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, GERARD E. LYNCH, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ MUHAMMAD ASSAD, AKA ASAD BUTT, Petitioner, v. 17-521 NAC JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Naresh M. Gehi, Forest Hills, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director; Russell J.E. Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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 Muhammad Assad, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks review of a January 27, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a December 23, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Assad’s motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Muhammad Assad, No. A 087 146 447 (B.I.A. Jan. 27, 2017), aff’g No. A087 146 447 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 23, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Assad’s petition is timely filed only as to the denial of reopening, so our review is limited to that decision. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89- 90 (2d Cir. 2001). We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. Gertsenshteyn v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 544 F.3d 137, 142 (2d Cir. 2008). We review the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, “mindful that motions to reopen ‘are disfavored.’” Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2 2006, quoting INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322-23 (1992). To obtain reopening based on new evidence, a movant must present previously unavailable evidence that establishes his prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988). For reopening based on ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must establish that counsel’s performance resulted in actual prejudice. See Esposito v. INS, 987 F.2d 108, 111 (2d Cir. 1993). In ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals