17-2842 (L) Mijanul v. Sessions BIA A096 154 860 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 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 5th day of November, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 AKRAM MIJANUL, MIJANUL AKRAM, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-2842 (L); 17 18-394 (Con) 18 NAC 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Marotta, Vernon, NJ. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Jonathan A. 28 Robbins, Assistant Director; 29 Nicole Nardone, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 31 United States Department of 32 Justice, Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of 2 decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is 3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for 4 review are DENIED. 5 Petitioner Akram Mijanul, a native and citizen of 6 Bangladesh, seeks review of August 17, 2017 and January 30, 7 2018, decisions of the BIA denying his motions to reopen and 8 reconsider. In re Akram Mijanul, No. A 096 154 860 (B.I.A. 9 Aug. 17, 2017 and Jan. 30, 2018). We assume the parties’ 10 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 11 in this case. 12 As an initial matter, because Mijanul’s petitions are 13 timely filed only as to the BIA’s 2017 and 2018 decisions 14 denying his motions to reopen and reconsider, our review is 15 limited to those decisions, and we may not consider any direct 16 challenge to the BIA’s 2012 decision finding waived any 17 challenge to the immigration judge’s conclusion that Mijanul 18 filed a frivolous asylum application. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. 19 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir. 2001). 20 For the reasons stated below, we find no error in the denial 21 of reopening and reconsideration. 22 Motion to Reopen 23 We review the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen for 2 1 abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d 2 Cir. 2006). It is undisputed that Mijanul’s May 2017 motion ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals