18-1613 Ocasio v. Barr BIA Hom, IJ A076 574 740 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 9th day of October, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 LICETH MARTHA OCASIO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-1613 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Justin Markel, Senior 28 Litigation Counsel; Andrew 1 Oliveira, Trial Attorney, Office 2 of Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Liceth Martha Ocasio, a native and citizen of 10 Honduras, seeks review of a May 2, 2018 decision of the BIA 11 affirming an October 10, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge 12 (“IJ”) denying Ocasio’s motion to reopen and rescind her in 13 absentia removal order. In re Liceth Martha Ocasio, No. A 14 076 574 740 (B.I.A. May 2, 2018), aff’g No. A 076 574 740 15 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Oct. 10, 2017). We assume the parties’ 16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 17 in this case. 18 Under the circumstances of this case, we consider the 19 IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. Yan Chen v. 20 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Motions to reopen 21 in absentia removal orders are governed by different rules 22 depending on whether the movant seeks to rescind the order or 23 present new evidence of eligibility for relief from removal. 2 1 See Song Jin Wu v. INS, 436 F.3d 157, 163 (2d Cir. 2006); In 2 re M-S-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 349, 353–55 (BIA 1998). Accordingly, 3 when, as here, an alien files a motion that seeks both 4 rescission of an in absentia removal order, as well as 5 reopening for consideration of an application for ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals