18-240 Lulbadda Waduge Don v. Barr BIA A076 500 755 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 11th day of December, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 PETER W. HALL, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SHIRAN DULIP KARUNADASA LULBADDA 14 WADUGE DON, AKA SHIRAN DULIP 15 KARUNADASA, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 18-240 19 NAC 20 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 21 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 28 General; Jeffery R. Leist, Senior 29 Litigation Counsel; Alexander J. 30 Lutz, Trial Attorney, Office of 31 Immigration Litigation, United 32 States Department of Justice, 33 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Shiran Dulip Karunadasa Lulbadda Waduge Don, 6 a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, seeks review of a January 7 29, 2018, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen 8 his removal proceedings. In re Lulbadda Waduge Don, No. A076 9 500 755 (B.I.A. Jan. 29, 2018). We assume the parties’ 10 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 11 in this case. 12 We review the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen for 13 abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d 14 Cir. 2006). Lulbadda Waduge Don moved to reopen in order to 15 apply to adjust status based on an approved visa petition 16 filed on his behalf by his U.S. citizen wife. The agency did 17 not abuse its discretion in denying the November 2017 motion 18 because it was untimely filed more than two years after the 19 removal order became final and did not fall within any of the 20 statutory or regulatory exceptions to the time limit for a 21 motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (90-day 22 deadline for motions to reopen); Matter of Yauri, 25 I. & N. 23 Dec. 103, 105 (BIA 2009). Lulbadda Waduge Don argues that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals