17‐1495(L) Enoh v. Barr BIA A095 420 131 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. 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 3rd day of January, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges, ALISON J. NATHAN,* District Judge. _____________________________________ TERENCE ENOH ENOH, Petitioner, v. 17‐1495(L) 18‐973(Con) 19‐1161(Con) WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES * Judge Alison J. Nathan, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: SAMUEL HARBOURT, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, San Francisco, CA, (Robert M. Loeb, Matthew R. Shahabian, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Washington, DC and New York, NY, on the brief). FOR RESPONDENT: KATHRYN M. MCKINNEY, Trial Attorney, (Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, on the brief), for Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the lead petition for review is GRANTED and the consolidated petitions for review are DENIED. Petitioner Terence Enoh Enoh (“Enoh”), a native and citizen of Cameroon, seeks review of April 11, 2017, March 6, 2018, and March 29, 2019 decisions of the BIA denying his motions to reopen and reconsider. In re Terence Enoh Enoh, No. A095 420 131 (B.I.A. Apr. 11, 2017, Mar. 6, 2018, Mar. 29, 2019). We review the BIA’s denial of motions to reconsider and reopen for abuse of discretion. See Zhao Quan Chen v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 153, 154 (2d Cir. 2007). 2 The BIA abuses its discretion if its “decision provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where the Board has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233‐34 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). I. Lead petition, 17‐1495 In the lead petition, Enoh argues that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) breached its own confidentiality regulations when it disclosed to the Cameroon Embassy his membership in the outlawed Southern Cameroon National Council (“SCNC”) as part of an effort to obtain travel documents relevant to Enoh’s asylum application. The ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals