17-1171 Zelaya-Martinez v. Barr BIA A200 818 333 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 1st day of May, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ERICK GILBERTO ZELAYA-MARTINEZ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1171 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; M. Jocelyn Lopez 28 Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel; 29 Sara J. Bayram, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 31 United States Department of 32 Justice, Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Erick Gilberto Zelaya-Martinez, a native and 6 citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of an April 6, 2017, 7 decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re 8 Erick Gilberto Zelaya-Martinez, No. A 200 818 333 (B.I.A. Apr. 9 6, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 10 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 11 We review the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen for 12 abuse of discretion, Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d 13 Cir. 2006), and review findings of fact as to country 14 conditions underlying that decision for substantial evidence, 15 Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). 16 It is undisputed that Zelaya-Martinez’s January 2017 17 motion to reopen was untimely because it was filed nearly 18 three years after his removal order became final in March 19 2014. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (setting 90-day 20 deadline for filing motion to reopen). Because the time 21 limitation does not apply if the motion is filed to apply 22 for asylum “based on changed country conditions arising in 2 1 the country of nationality or the country to which removal 2 has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not 3 available and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals