21-6050 Alvarez Morales v. Garland Conroy, IJ A075 447 663 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 8th day of March, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 BOLIVAR GEORDANO ALVAREZ 15 MORALES, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 21-6050 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: James D. Brousseau, Esq., 27 Brousseau & Lee, PLLC, Falls 28 Church, VA. 29 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Jeffrey R. 3 Leist, Senior Litigation Counsel; 4 Jennifer A. Bowen, Trial Attorney, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 United States Department of 7 Justice, Washington, DC. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), it is hereby ORDERED, 10 ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 11 DISMISSED. 12 Petitioner Bolivar Geordano Alvarez Morales, a native 13 and citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a December 30, 2020 14 decision of an IJ affirming an asylum officer’s determination 15 that he did not establish a reasonable fear of persecution or 16 torture. In the Matter of Bolivar Geordano Alvarez Morales, 17 No. A075 447 663 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 30, 2020). We 18 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 19 procedural history. 20 The dispositive issue is whether we have jurisdiction to 21 review the IJ’s reasonable fear determination. We conclude 22 that we do not because our jurisdiction is limited to 23 petitions for review filed within 30 days of a final order of 24 removal. See Bhaktibhai-Patel v. Garland, 32 F.4th 180, 191 25 (2d Cir. 2022). 2 1 Alvarez Morales was removed from the United States in 2 1997 and reentered in 1999. The Department of Homeland 3 Security (“DHS”) reinstated his removal order in 2013, 4 subjecting him to removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), which 5 provides a summary removal process. See Johnson v. Guzman 6 Chavez, 141 S. Ct. 2271, 2282 (2021) (citing 8 C.F.R. 7 §§ 241.8(a)-(c), 1241.8(a)-(c)). After a removal order …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals