19-42 Feng v. Garland BIA A206 288 238 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 9th day of April, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 XUEXIA FENG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-42 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,* 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Rakhvir K. Dhanoa, Esq., New 24 York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Assistant 27 Attorney General; Jessica A. 28 Dawgert, Senior Litigation * Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted for former Attorney Jeffrey A. Rosen. 1 Counsel; Christopher Buchanan, 2 Trial Attorney, Office of 3 Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, DC. 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Xuexia Feng, a native and citizen of the 12 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 12, 13 2018 decision of the BIA denying her motion to reopen her 14 removal proceedings. In re Xuexia Feng, No. A 206 288 238 15 (B.I.A. Dec. 12, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 16 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 17 We have jurisdiction to review only the BIA’s denial of 18 Feng’s motion to reopen. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 19 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam); Ke Zhen Zhao v. 20 U.S. DOJ, 265 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir. 2001). We review the 21 BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of 22 discretion. See Zhao Quan Chen v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 153, 23 154 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam). The BIA abuses its 24 discretion if its “decision provides no rational 2 1 explanation, inexplicably departs from established 2 policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only 3 summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where the 4 Board has acted in an arbitrary or capricious 5 manner.” Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals