18-1514 (L) Arthur v. Garland BIA Tsankov, IJ A031 447 509 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 4th day of November, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: JOSEPH F. BIANCO, MICHAEL H. PARK, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ GODFREY ALEXANDER ARTHUR, Petitioner, v. 18-1514 (L), 20-3612 (Con) MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: STEWART R. GILSON (Joseph L. Sorkin, on the brief), Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, New York, NY; Sharone S. Kaufman, The Legal Aid Society, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: SARA J. BAYRAM, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation (John W. Blakeley, Assistant Director, on the brief), for Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions are DENIED. Petitioner Godfrey Alexander Arthur, a native and citizen of Guyana, seeks review of an April 19, 2018 decision of the BIA affirming a November 29, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), ordering his removal, In re Godfrey Alexander Arthur, No. A031 447 509 (B.I.A. Apr. 19, 2018), aff’g No. A031 447 509 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Nov. 29, 2017), and a September 17, 2020 decision of the BIA, denying his motion to reopen, No. A031 447 509 (B.I.A. Sept. 17, 2020). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to deny the petitions. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified and supplemented by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review questions of law de novo, Matthews v. Barr, 927 F.3d 606, 612 (2d Cir. 2019), findings of fact for substantial evidence, see Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009), and the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen 2 for abuse of discretion, Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir. 2001). Arthur filed two petitions for review, which we have consolidated …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals