MacAreno v. Sessions


17-1913 Macareno v. Sessions 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, at 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 25th day of September, two thousand eighteen. Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judge, TIMOTHY C. STANCEU, Judge.* ________________________________________________ WENCESLAO RAFAEL TAPIA MACARENO, aka Wenceslao Tapia-M, aka Rafael Tapia, aka Wenceslao Rafael Macareno, Petitioner, v. No. 17-1913 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, United States Attorney General, Respondent. ____________________________________________ For Petitioner: PATRICK CROWLEY, Kuba Law Firm, New York, NY. For Respondent: CHAD A. READLER, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Jonathan A. Robbins, Senior Litigation Counsel; Tracey N. McDonald, Trial * Timothy C. Stanceu, Chief Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. 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. Petitioner Wenceslao Rafael Tapia Macareno seeks review of a June 2, 2017 decision of the BIA affirming an August 12, 2016 decision by an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying Tapia Macareno’s application for cancellation of his removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history in this case. We first address the contention that the BIA erred by affirming the IJ’s exclusion of certain evidence in light of a pre-hearing deadline that was not satisfied. An IJ, like a district judge, has broad discretion to set and enforce filing deadlines. Dedji v. Mukasey, 525 F.3d 187, 192 (2d Cir. 2008). We review the enforcement of such deadlines under an abuse of discretion standard. Id. at 191. In advance of a June 15, 2015 hearing, the IJ ordered that any documentary evidence was to have been submitted by April 2, 2015. Tapia Macareno nevertheless failed to submit the materials in question until May 4, 2015. In the absence of good cause for that delay, which Tapia Macareno has not established, the IJ did not abuse its discretion by excluding that evidence as untimely. See, e.g., Lin v. Sessions, 721 F. App’x 68, 71 (2d Cir. 2018); Weng v. Mukasey, 294 F. App’x 672, 673 (2d Cir. 2008). Indeed, the agency’s rules expressly call for ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals