18-2350 Chi v. Barr BIA A 087 563 620 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 18th day of September, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 1 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YUSHUANG CHI, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-2350 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Louis H. Klein, Esq., The Kasen 24 Law Firm, PLLC, Flushing, NY. 25 1 - Circuit Judge Peter W. Hall, originally a member of the panel, is currently unavailable. Circuit Judge Jon O. Newman has replaced Judge Hall on the panel for this matter. See 2d Cir. IOP E(b). 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 2 General; Derek C. Julius, 3 Assistant Director; Zoe J. Heller, 4 Senior Litigation Counsel, Office 5 of Immigration Litigation, United 6 States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, DC. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Yushuang Chi, a native and citizen of China, 13 seeks review of a July 11, 2018, decision of the BIA denying 14 Chi’s untimely motion to reopen proceedings and to reissue 15 its January 2017 decision ordering her removal to China. In 16 re Yushuang Chi, No. A 087 563 620 (B.I.A. Jul. 11, 2018). 17 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 18 and procedural history. 19 We review the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen or 20 reissue for abuse of discretion. See Jian Hui Shao v. 21 Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008) (motion to 22 reopen); Ping Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 502 F.3d 73, 75 (2d 23 Cir. 2007) (motion to reissue). “An abuse of discretion may 24 be found in those circumstances where the [BIA’s] decision 25 provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from 2 1 established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains 2 only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where 3 the [BIA] has acted in an arbitrary ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals