18-1967 (L) Phanchoulidze v. Barr 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, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 7th day of February, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROBERT D. SACK, Circuit Judges, KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge.* GEORGE PHANCHOULIDZE, Petitioner, 18-1967-ag (L); 19-1710-ag (con) v. WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. FOR PETITIONER: Joseph C. Hohenstein, Landau, Hess, Simon & Choi, Philadelphia, PA. * Judge Katherine Polk Failla, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 Frank B. Lindner, Lindner & Lindner, P.C., Yardley, PA. FOR RESPONDENT: Andrew N. O’Malley (Joseph H. Hunt and Cindy S. Ferrier, on the brief), Trial Attorney, for William P. Barr, United States Attorney General, Washington, D.C. Appeal from a June 6, 2018 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review be and hereby is DENIED. Petitioner George Phanchoulidze (“Phanchoulidze”), a native and citizen of Georgia, seeks review of two decisions: (1) a June 6, 2018 decision of the BIA affirming an August 9, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his request for administrative closure, and (2) a May 24, 2019 decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen and reconsider. In re George Phanchoulidze, No. A 076 020 396 (B.I.A. June 6, 2018), aff’g No. A 076 020 396 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 9, 2017); In re George Phanchoulidze, No. A 076 020 396 (B.I.A. May 24, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the BIA’s decision as the final agency decision because the BIA denied administrative closure on different grounds than the IJ. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we do not address Phanchoulidze’s arguments challenging the grounds for the IJ’s decision. Id. The decision before us is the BIA’s conclusion that administrative closure was prohibited based on the Attorney General’s intervening decision in Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I. & N. Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018). Our review of the BIA’s decision is limited to the arguments that Phanchoulidze has raised before us. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals