16-1343 Woozencroft v. Sessions BIA A205 497 485 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 6th day of December, two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 DAMIAN RUDOLPH WOOZENCROFT, AKA 14 RICHARD BLACKWELL, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 16-1343 18 NAC 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Mikhail Izrailev (and Parisa 25 Karaahmet, on the brief), Fragomen, 26 Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, LLP, New 27 York, N.Y. 28 29 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 30 Attorney General; Claire L. Workman, 31 Senior Litigation Counsel; Jane T. 32 Schaffner, Trial Attorney, Office of 1 Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, D.C. 4 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 is 8 DENIED. 9 Petitioner Damian Rudolph Woozencroft, a native and 10 citizen of Jamaica, seeks review of a March 18, 2016, decision 11 of the BIA denying his motions to reconsider and reopen. In 12 re Damian Rudolph Woozencroft, No. A205 497 485 (B.I.A. Mar. 13 18, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 14 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 15 We review the BIA’s denial of motions to reconsider and 16 reopen for abuse of discretion. See Zhao Quan Chen v. Gonzales, 17 492 F.3d 153, 154 (2d Cir. 2007). The BIA abuses its discretion 18 if its “decision provides no rational explanation, inexplicably 19 departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, 20 or contains only summary or conclusory statements.” Kaur v. 21 BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233-34 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Ke Khen Zhao 22 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir. 2005)). 23 Motions to reconsider must “specify[] the errors of fact 24 or law in the prior Board decision.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). 2 1 “A motion to reopen proceedings shall not be granted unless it 2 appears to the B[IA] that evidence sought to be ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals