18-2379 Tanveer v. Barr BIA Hom, IJ A073 039 250 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 9th day of March, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MOHAMMAD TANVEER, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-2379 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, Esq., New 24 York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Mary Jane Candaux, 28 Assistant Director; Remi Da Rocha- 29 Afodu, Trial Attorney, Office of 1 Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, DC. 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Mohammad Tanveer, a native and citizen of 9 Pakistan, seeks review of an August 7, 2018, decision of the 10 BIA affirming a February 13, 2018, decision of an Immigration 11 Judge (“IJ”) denying Tanveer’s motion to reopen. In re 12 Mohammad Tanveer, No. A 073 039 250 (B.I.A. Aug. 7, 2018), 13 aff’g No. A 073 039 250 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 13, 2018). 14 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 15 and procedural history. 16 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 17 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen 18 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). As an initial 19 matter, Tanveer does not challenge the agency’s denial of sua 20 sponte reopening and has therefore waived review of that 21 issue. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 22 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (petitioner abandons issues and claims 23 not raised in his brief). And regardless of waiver, this 24 Court generally lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s 2 1 “entirely discretionary” decision declining to reopen sua 2 sponte. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d Cir. 2006); 3 see also Sumbundu v. Holder, 602 F.3d 47, 55 (2d Cir. 2010) 4 (“[T]he ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals