19-1 Espinal-Cruz v. Rosen BIA A099 668 207/208/209 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 5th day of January, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ CARMEN SUYAPA ESPINAL-CRUZ, JONATHAN JOSUE ESPINAL-CRUZ, DARWIN EDUARDO URBINA-ESPINAL Petitioners, v. 19-1 NAC JEFFREY A. ROSEN, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. 1 _____________________________________ 1 Jeffrey A. Rosen, Acting United States Attorney General, is automatically substituted for former Attorney General William P. Barr per Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2). The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption to conform to the above. FOR PETITIONERS: Raymond G. Lahoud, Esq., Norris Mclaughlin, P.A., Allentown, PA. FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Margot L. Carter, Senior Litigation Counsel; Aaron D. Nelson, 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. Petitioners Carmen Suyapa Espinal-Cruz, Jonathan Josue Espinal-Cruz, and Darwin Eduardo Urbina-Espinal, natives and citizens of Honduras, seek review of a December 4, 2018, decision of the BIA denying their motion to reopen. See In re Carmen Suyapa Espinal-Cruz, et al., Nos. A 099 668 207/208/209 (B.I.A. Dec. 4, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We review the BIA’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). It is undisputed that Petitioners’ motion to reopen was untimely and number barred, 2 as it was their second motion to reopen and they filed it nine years after the BIA’s final administrative decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is an exception to these limitations if the motion is filed to seek asylum “based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceedings.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Furthermore, such new ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals