19-1215-ag Gutierrez-Cupido v. Barr 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 a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 22nd day of December, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, MICHAEL H. PARK, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. JOSE ELIAS GUTIERREZ-CUPIDO, Petitioner, 19-1215-ag v. WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Gregory Dubinsky (Brian T. Goldman, on the brief), Holwell, Shuster, & Goldberg LLP, New York, NY. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Matthew J. Glover (Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Derek C. Julius, Assistant Director; Karen L. Melnik, Trial Attorney, on the brief), Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Jose Elias Gutierrez-Cupido (“Gutierrez-Cupido”), a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of an April 18, 2019, decision of the BIA affirming an October 3, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying a continuance, finding his applications for relief abandoned, and ordering removal. In re Jose Elias Gutierrez-Cupido, No. A215 708 481 (B.I.A. Apr. 18, 2019), aff’g No. A215 708 481 (Immig. Ct. Batavia Oct. 3, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Here, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). “[A]n IJ has broad discretion to set and extend filing deadlines,” Dedji v. Mukasey, 525 F.3d 187, 191 (2d Cir. 2008), and when “an application or document is not filed within the time set by the [IJ], the opportunity to file that application or document shall be deemed waived,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c). However, an IJ has “inherent power to disregard the deadlines . . . , taking into consideration a removable alien’s right to a ‘reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against [him] [and] to present evidence on [his] own behalf.’” Dedji, 525 F.3d at 192 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B)) (alterations original). “An IJ’s decision constitutes error or an abuse of discretion when (1) his decision rests on an error of law (such as application of the wrong legal principle) or a clearly erroneous factual ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals