18-3159 Ham-Pena v. Barr BIA A097 396 681 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 8th day of September, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 CARLOS ALBERTO HAM-PENA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-3159 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Glenn L. Formica, New Haven, CT. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Cindy S. 27 Ferrier, Assistant Director; 28 Victoria M. Braga, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 1 United States Department of 2 Justice, Washington, DC. 3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 4 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 5 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 6 is DENIED. 7 Petitioner Carlos Alberto Ham-Pena, a native and citizen 8 of Honduras, seeks review of a September 28, 2018 decision of 9 the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. 10 In re Carlos Alberto Ham-Pena, No. A 097 396 681 (B.I.A. Sept. 11 28, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 12 underlying facts and procedural history. 13 We have reviewed the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen 14 for abuse of discretion and considered whether its conclusion 15 regarding changed country conditions is supported by 16 substantial evidence. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 17 138, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). Ham-Pena moved to reopen in 18 order to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 19 under the Convention Against Torture, asserting that a 20 worsening political situation in Honduras and the attempted 21 murder of his brother, a politician, excused the untimely 22 filing of his motion. We find no abuse of discretion. 2 1 It is undisputed that Ham-Pena’s motion was untimely 2 because Ham-Pena filed it more than three years after the 3 BIA’s 2014 decision affirming his removal order. See 8 4 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (90-day deadline for motions to 5 reopen); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (same). However, the time 6 limitation for filing a motion ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals