18-1442 (L) Kolodziejczyk v. Barr BIA A 098 692 668 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 11th day of March, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: PETER W. HALL, SUSAN L. CARNEY, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ TOMASZ KOLODZIEJCZYK, Petitioner, v. 18-1442 (L), 19-911 (Con)* NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Gail A. Dulay, Esq., Los Angeles, CA. * The Clerk of Court is directed to consolidate these appeals. FOR RESPONDENT: Tracie N. Jones, Trial Attorney; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director; Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, 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 petitions for review are DENIED. Petitioner Tomasz Kolodziejczyk, a native and citizen of Poland, seeks review of a May 9, 2018 decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings and a March 14, 2019 decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings or reconsider the prior denial of reopening. In re Tomasz Kolodziejczyk, No. A 098 692 668 (B.I.A. May 9, 2018 & Mar. 14, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We review the agency’s denial of motions to reopen and reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168–69, 173 (2d Cir. 2008). “An abuse of discretion may be found in those circumstances where the [BIA’s] decision provides no rational explanation, 2 inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where the [BIA] has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted). Reopening With certain exceptions inapplicable here, an alien seeking to reopen proceedings may file only one motion to reopen and must do so no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Kolodziejczyk’s December 2017 and July 2018 motions to reopen were untimely and number-barred because they ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals