18-2417 Puchi-Munoz v. Garland BIA A089 709 246 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 30th day of March, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 10 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 SERGIO BOLIVAR PUCHI-MUNOZ, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-2417 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 1 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Perham Makabi, Kew Gardens, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting 27 Assistant Attorney General; 1 The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above. 1 Bernard A. Joseph, Senior 2 Litigation Counsel; Enitan O. 3 Otunla, Trial Attorney, Office of 4 Immigration Litigation, United 5 States Department of Justice, 6 Washington, DC. 7 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 9 AND DECREED that this petition for review of a decision of 10 the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Sergio Bolivar Puchi-Munoz, a native and 12 citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a July 16, 2018, decision 13 of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal 14 proceedings. In re Sergio Bolivar Puchi-Munoz, No. A089 709 15 246 (B.I.A. Jul. 16, 2018). We assume the parties’ 16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 17 We have reviewed the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen 18 for abuse of discretion. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 19 F.3d 138, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). Puchi-Munoz moved to reopen 20 his removal proceedings to apply for cancellation of removal, 21 asserting that his prior counsel was ineffective in not filing 22 an application for that relief. It is undisputed that Puchi- 23 Munoz’s motion was untimely because he filed it almost two 24 years after the BIA’s 2015 decision affirming his removal 25 order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. 26 § 1003.2(c)(2). While ineffective assistance of counsel can 2 1 excuse an untimely filing, see Rashid v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 2 127, 130–31 (2d Cir. 2008), the BIA may deny even a timely 3 motion if a noncitizen fails to establish prima facie …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals