19-861 Bonilla-Reyes v. Garland BIA A089 271 991 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 18th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, REENA RAGGI, MICHAEL H. PARK, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ SULMA YANETH BONILLA-REYES, Petitioner, v. 19-861 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Paul O’Dwyer, Esq., New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Melissa Neiman-Kelting , Assistant Director; Richard Kelley, 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 DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Petitioner Sulma Yaneth Bonilla-Reyes, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a March 15, 2019, decision of the BIA denying her motion to reopen and reconsider. In re Sulma Yaneth Bonilla-Reyes, No. A 089 271 991 (B.I.A. Mar. 15, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the BIA’s denial of Bonilla-Reyes’s motions to reconsider and reopen for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006); see Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). It is undisputed that Bonilla-Reyes’s 2018 motion was untimely because the BIA issued a final order in 2013 adopting and affirming the IJ’s denial of asylum and related relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B), (7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2), (c)(2). Accordingly, the only basis for reconsideration was the BIA’s authority to do so sua 2 sponte. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). The BIA invokes its sua sponte authority only in “exceptional situations,” not as a “general cure for filing defects or to otherwise circumvent the regulations, where enforcing them may result in hardship.” In re J-J-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 976, 984 (B.I.A. 1997). The determination as to what circumstances warrant sua sponte reopening is entirely committed to the agency’s discretion. See Ali, 448 F.3d at 517-18. We lack jurisdiction to review this “entirely discretionary” decision, id. at 518, and may remand only “where the [BIA] may have declined to exercise its sua sponte authority …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals