17-3778 (L) Reyes Alvarez v. Barr BIA A088 186 365 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. 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 23rd day of December, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, PIERRE N. LEVAL, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ MARCO ANTONIO REYES ALVAREZ, Petitioner, v. 17-3778 (L), 18-269 (Con) NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Erin O’Neil-Baker, Esq. Hartford, CT. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Kohsei Ugumori, Senior Litigation Counsel; Nehal H. Kamani, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 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 Marco Antonio Reyes Alvarez, a native and citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of two BIA decisions: an August 7, 2017 decision denying a stay of removal, and a January 8, 2018 decision denying his motion to reopen. In re Marco Antonio Reyes Alvarez, No. A 088 186 365 (B.I.A. Aug. 7, 2017); In re Marco Antonio Reyes Alvarez, No. A 088 186 365 (B.I.A. Jan. 8, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We review the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). “An abuse of discretion may be found in those circumstances where the [BIA’s] decision provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where the [BIA] has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” 2 Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted). An alien seeking to reopen proceedings may file only one motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Reyes Alvarez’s August 2017 motion was untimely because he filed it approximately seven years after the BIA dismissed his appeal in May 2010. However, the time limitation does not apply if reopening is sought to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals