18-1172 Buestan Rojas v. Garland BIA A206 869 546 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 for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 8th day of November, two thousand 4 twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 GLADYS YOLANDA BUESTAN ROJAS, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-1172 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 1 FOR PETITIONER: Glen L. Formica, Formica, Williams, P.C., New 2 Haven, CT. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney 5 General; Brianne Whelan Cohen, Senior 6 Litigation Counsel; Deitz P. Lefort, Trial 7 Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 8 United States Department of Justice, 9 Washington, DC. 10 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 12 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 13 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 14 Petitioner Gladys Yolanda Buestan Rojas, a native and citizen of Ecuador, 15 seeks review of an April 18, 2018 decision of the BIA, denying her motion to 16 reconsider the denial of her petition for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 17 under the Convention Against Torture. In re Gladys Yolanda Buestan Rojas, 18 No. A206 869 546 (B.I.A. Apr. 18, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with 19 the underlying facts and procedural history. 20 We review the BIA’s denial of reconsideration for abuse of discretion. See 21 Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). A motion to reconsider 22 “shall specify the errors of law or fact in the previous order.” 8 U.S.C. 2 1 § 1229a(c)(6)(C); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 2 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2001). 3 As an initial matter, the BIA excused Buestan Rojas’s failure to exhaust her 4 challenge to the underlying adverse-credibility determination when it thoroughly 5 addressed that determination in both its dismissal of Buestan Rojas’s appeal from 6 the IJ and its denial of her motion to reconsider. See Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of 7 Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289, 296–97 (2d Cir. 2006) (excusing a petitioner’s failure to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals