Barrie v. Garland

20-1787 Barrie v. Garland BIA A095 473 987 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 10th day of January, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 EUNICE C. LEE, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 AMADU M. BARRIE, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-1787 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Justine A. Marous, Marous Law 26 Group, P.C., New York, NY. 27 28 1 2 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 3 Attorney General; Paul Fiorino , 4 Senior Litigation Counsel; Kevin 5 J. Conway, Trial Attorney, Office 6 of 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 Petitioner Amadu M. Barrie, a native and citizen of 14 Sierra Leone, seeks review of a May 11, 2020, decision of the 15 BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings to 16 pursue adjustment to lawful permanent resident status based 17 on a pending visa petition filed by his U.S. citizen wife. 18 In re Barrie, No. A095 473 987 (B.I.A. May 11, 2020). We 19 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 20 procedural history. 21 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 22 abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d 23 Cir. 2006). “An abuse of discretion may be found in those 24 circumstances where the Board’s decision provides no rational 25 explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, 2 1 is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or 2 conclusory statements; that is to say, where the Board has 3 acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Kaur v. BIA, 4 413 F.3d 232, 233–34 (2d Cir. 2005) (quotation marks 5 omitted). 6 A noncitizen seeking to reopen removal proceedings 7 generally may file one motion to reopen no later than 90 days 8 after the date on which the final administrative decision was …

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