19-2048 Barriga v. Barr BIA Montante, IJ A076 563 917 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 11th day of March, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 RICARDO BARRIGA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-2048 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Pankaj Malik, Warshaw Burstein, 24 LLP, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Mary Jane Candaux, 28 Assistant Director; Nicole J. 29 Thomas-Dorris, Trial Attorney, 1 Office of Immigration Litigation, 2 United States Department of 3 Justice, 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 DISMISSED. 8 Petitioner Ricardo Barriga, a native and citizen of 9 Peru, seeks review of a June 28, 2019, decision of the BIA 10 summarily dismissing Barriga’s appeal of a January 2, 2019, 11 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, 12 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 13 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ricardo Barriga, No. A076 14 563 917 (B.I.A. June 28, 2019), aff’g No. A076 563 917 15 (Immig. Ct. Batavia Jan. 2, 2019). His appeal was 16 summarily dismissed because, after indicating in the notice 17 of appeal that he would file a brief, his lawyer missed an 18 already extended deadline, and later filed an untimely 19 brief without making the requisite motion to file out of 20 time. The dismissal was authorized by regulation.1 We 1 The BIA may summarily dismiss any appeal in which “[t]he party concerned indicates on Form EOIR-26 or Form EOIR-29 that he or she will file a brief or statement in support of the appeal and, thereafter, does not file such brief or statement, or reasonably explain his or her failure to do 2 1 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 2 and procedural history. 3 Our jurisdiction is limited to constitutional claims 4 and questions of law because Barriga is removable by ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals