18-1336 Narain v. Barr BIA A091 505 432 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 28th day of January, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 PETER W. HALL,1 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 GAMDUR NARAIN, 13 Petitioner, 14 v. 18-1336 15 NAC 16 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 17 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 18 Respondent. 19 _____________________________________ 20 21 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, 22 NY. 23 24 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 25 Attorney General; Papu Sandhu, 26 Assistant Director; W. Daniel 27 Shieh, Senior Litigation Counsel, 1 Judge Christopher F. Droney, who was originally assigned to the panel, retired from the Court, effective January 1, 2020, prior to the resolution of this case. The remaining two members of the panel, who are in agreement, have determined the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d); 2d Cir. IOP E(b); United States v. Desimone, 140 F.3d 457, 458-59 (2d Cir. 1998). 1 Office of Immigration Litigation, 2 United States Department of 3 Justice, Washington, DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Gamdur Narain, a native and citizen of India, 10 seeks review of an April 6, 2018, decision of the BIA denying 11 his motions to reopen. In re Gamdur Narain, No. A 091 505 12 432 (B.I.A. Apr. 6, 2018). We assume the parties’ 13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 14 in this case. 15 “We review the denial of motions to reopen immigration 16 proceedings for abuse of discretion, mindful that motions to 17 reopen ‘are disfavored.’” Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 18 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322-23 19 (1992)). An alien may file one motion to reopen no later 20 than 90 days after the final administrative decision is 21 rendered. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. 22 § 1003.2(c)(2). Narain filed two motions to reopen in 23 January and February 2018 and does not dispute that they were 2 1 untimely filed following the BIA’s September 2017 decision ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals