19-3199 Chen v. Rosen BIA A078 855 945 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 6th day of January, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YONG CHEN, AKA XUE LING CHEN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-3199 17 NAC 18 JEFFREY A. ROSEN, ACTING UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 1 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jean Wang, Esq., Flushing, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 26 Assistant Attorney General; 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen is automatically substituted for former Attorney General William P. Barr as Respondent. 1 Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant 2 Director; Lynda A. Do, Trial 3 Attorney, Office of Immigration 4 Litigation, United States 5 Department of Justice, Washington, 6 DC. 7 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Yong Chen, a native and citizen of the 13 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 30, 14 2019, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In 15 re Yong Chen, No. A078 855 945 (B.I.A. Sept. 30, 2019). We 16 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 17 and procedural history. 18 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 19 abuse of discretion. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 20 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). Before the BIA, Chen 21 argued that the agency did not have jurisdiction to 22 commence removal proceedings and that he was eligible for 23 cancellation of removal because his notice to appear 24 (“NTA”), which did not contain a hearing date or time, was 2 1 deficient under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 2 (2018), and thus did not vest jurisdiction or stop time for 3 calculating the physical presence required for 4 cancellation. 5 It is undisputed that Chen’s 2018 motion to reopen was 6 untimely because it was filed more than 13 years after ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals