17-2379 Hasan v. Barr BIA A031 209 522 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 29th day of April, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, RICHARD C. WESLEY, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ KAZI ABUL HASAN, Petitioner, v. 17-2379 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: PAUL B. GROTAS, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: AARON D. NELSON, Trial Attorney (Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, on the brief), Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Kazi Abul Hasan, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of a July 25, 2017 decision of the BIA denying his motion to (1) reconsider dismissal of his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s final order of removal, and (2) reopen his removal proceedings. In re Kazi Abul Hasan, No. A 031 209 522 (BIA July 25, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. As an initial matter, because Hasan has timely petitioned for review of the denial of a motion to reconsider and reopen, but not from the underlying decision for which reconsideration was sought, we may review only the denial of his motion. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89–90 (2d Cir. 2001). Our jurisdiction to review a final order of removal, including an order denying a 2 motion to reconsider and reopen, against an alien such as Hasan who is removable for a controlled substance offense is limited to constitutional claims and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); Santos-Salazar v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 400 F.3d 99, 103 (2d Cir. 2005) (providing that criminal jurisdictional bars apply equally to denials of motions to reconsider); Durant v. U.S. INS, 393 F.3d 113, 115 (2d Cir. 2004) (same for motions to reopen). We review constitutional claims and questions of law de novo. Pierre v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 109, 113 (2d Cir. 2007). For jurisdiction to attach, however, such claims must be colorable. Barco-Sandoval ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals