19-821 Arrue v. Rosen BIA A205 309 541 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 4th day of January, two thousand twenty- 5 one. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 ROBERT D. SACK, 10 DENNY CHIN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 PABLO RAFAEL ARRUE, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-821 18 NAC 19 JEFFREY A. ROSEN, ACTING UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Diana L. Castaneda, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 27 Assistant Attorney General; Mary 28 Jane Candaux, Assistant Director; 29 Nicole J. Thomas-Dorris, Trial 30 Attorney, Office of Immigration 31 Litigation, United States 32 Department of Justice, Washington, 33 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 DISMISSED. 5 Petitioner Pablo Rafael Arrue, a native and citizen of 6 Argentina, seeks review of a March 4, 2019, order of the BIA 7 denying his motion to reopen and reissue. In re Pablo Rafael 8 Arrue, No. A205 309 541 (B.I.A. Mar. 4, 2019). We assume the 9 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 10 history. 11 Because Arrue timely petitions for review of the BIA’s 12 denial of his motion to reissue, but not from the underlying 13 decision denying cancellation of removal, we may review only 14 the denial of his motion. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of 15 Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89–90 (2d Cir. 2001). We apply the 16 standards for a motion to reopen and review the denial of a 17 motion to reissue for abuse of discretion. See Ping Chen v. 18 U.S. Att’y Gen., 502 F.3d 73, 75 (2d Cir. 2007). 19 It is undisputed that Arrue’s 2018 motion to reopen and 20 reissue was untimely because he filed it more than one year 21 after his 2017 order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. 2 1 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (providing 90-day deadline for motions to 2 reopen); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (same); see also Ping Chen, 3 502 F.3d at 75. Arrue did not invoke any ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals