18-2789 Alvarez Polanco v. Barr BIA Ruehle, IJ A074 728 635 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 September, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 OLGA MARINA ALVAREZ POLANCO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-2789 17 NAC 18 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Yaniv Lavy, New York, NY 26 27 Rakhvir Dhanoa, New York, NY. 28 (on the Brief) 29 30 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 31 Attorney General (Anthony P. 32 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 1 Sheri R. Glaser, Trial Attorney, 2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 3 on the brief) for William P. Barr, 4 United States Attorney General, 5 United States Department of 6 Justice, Washington, DC. 7 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Olga Marina Alvarez Polanco, a native and 13 citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a September 4, 2018, 14 decision of the BIA affirming the March 15, 2018, decision of 15 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her motion to rescind her 16 removal order and reopen her removal proceedings. In re Olga 17 Marina Alvarez Polanco, No. A074 728 635 (B.I.A. Sept. 4, 18 2018), aff’g No. A074 728 635 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Mar. 15, 19 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 20 underlying facts and procedural history. 21 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 22 the BIA. See Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 23 2005). When, as here, an alien seeks both rescission of an in 24 absentia removal order and reopening of removal proceedings 2 1 to apply for relief from removal, we treat the request as 2 “comprising distinct motions to rescind and to reopen.” 3 Alrefae v. Chertoff, 471 F.3d 353, 357 (2d Cir. 2006); see 4 also Maghradze v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 150, 152 n.1 (2d Cir. 5 2006). When the BIA has applied the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals