Barczak v. Sessions

16-1377 Barczak v. Sessions BIA Christensen, IJ A088 440 588 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 8th day of November, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ANDREZEJ BARCZAK, Petitioner, v. 16-1377 NAC JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Nicholas J. Mundy, Brooklyn, N.Y. FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Briena L. Strippoli, Senior Litigation Counsel; Jenny C. Lee, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 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 DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. Petitioner Andrezej Barczak, a native and citizen of Poland, seeks review of an April 4, 2016 decision of the BIA affirming a January 10, 2015 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Barczak’s motion to rescind his in absentia removal order and reopen his proceedings. In re Andrezej Barczak, No. A088 440 588 (B.I.A. Apr. 4, 2016), aff’g No. A088 440 588 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 10, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289, 293 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the denial of a motion to rescind an in absentia removal order for abuse of discretion, “which may be found if the decision ‘provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements.’” Alrefae v. Chertoff, 471 F.3d 353, 357 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Wei Guang Wang v. B.I.A., 437 F.3d 270, 273 (2d Cir. 2006)). 2 An in absentia removal order may be rescinded “upon a motion to reopen filed within 180 days after the date of the order of removal if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). “‘[E]xceptional circumstances’ refers to exceptional circumstances (such as battery or extreme ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals