20-3782 Alvarado Arce v. Garland BIA A205 616 779/780 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 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 26th day of April, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 GUIDO CALABRESI, 9 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 10 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 ELVIS EUGENIO ALVARADO ARCE, 15 MANUELA MERCEDES PAUTA GUAMAN, 16 Petitioners, 17 18 v. 20-3782 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 26 FOR PETITIONERS: Perham Makabi, Esq., Kew Gardens, 27 NY. 28 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Anthony P. 3 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 4 Matthew B. George, Senior 5 Litigation Counsel, Office of 6 Immigration Litigation, United 7 States Department of Justice, 8 Washington, DC. 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 12 is DENIED. 13 Petitioners Elvis Eugenio Alvarado Arce and Manuela 14 Mercedes Pauta Guaman, natives and citizens of Ecuador, seek 15 review of an October 7, 2020, decision of the BIA denying 16 their motion to reopen. In re Alvarado Arce, Pauta Guaman, 17 Nos. A205 616 779/780 (B.I.A. Oct. 7, 2020). We assume the 18 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 19 history. 20 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 21 abuse of discretion, Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d 22 Cir. 2006), and country conditions determinations for 23 substantial evidence, Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 24 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). 2 1 It is undisputed that Petitioners motion to reopen was 2 untimely and number barred because it was their second motion 3 filed approximately three years after their removal order. 4 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A) (allowing one motion to reopen), 5 (C)(i) (90-day deadline for motion to reopen); 8 C.F.R. 6 § 1003.2(c)(2) (same). There is an exception to these time 7 and number limits if the motion is filed to seek asylum “based 8 on changed country conditions arising in the country of 9 nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, 10 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals