18‐1495 Calle‐Crespo v. Barr BIA Lamb, IJ A079 216 913 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 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 3rd day of December, two thousand 4 nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 9 Circuit Judges, 10 ALISON J. NATHAN,* 11 District Judge. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 FELIX LEONARDO CALLE‐CRESPO, 15 16 Petitioner, * Judge Alison J. Nathan, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 2 v. 18‐1495 3 4 5 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 6 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 7 8 Respondent. 9 _____________________________________ 10 11 FOR PETITIONER: James A. Welcome, Law Offices of James A. 12 Welcome, Waterbury, CT. 13 14 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; 15 Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director; Tim 16 Ramintz, Office of Immigration Litigation, 17 United States Department of Justice, 18 Washington, D.C. 19 20 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a decision of 21 the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 22 AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED 23 in part. 24 Petitioner Felix Leonardo Calle‐Crespo, a native and citizen of Ecuador, 25 seeks review of a May 7, 2018 decision of the BIA, affirming the November 29, 2017 26 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his motion to rescind his in 27 absentia removal order and reopen his removal proceedings. In re Felix Leonardo 28 Calle‐Crespo, No. A079 216 913 (B.I.A. May 7, 2018), aff’g No. A079 216 913 (Immig. 2 1 Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 29, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 2 underlying facts and procedural history. 3 “[F]or the sake of completeness,” we have considered both the IJ’s and the 4 BIA’s opinions. Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 5 2006). Motions to reopen in absentia removal orders are governed by different 6 rules depending on whether the movant seeks to rescind the order or present new 7 evidence of eligibility for relief from removal. See Song Jin Wu v. INS, 436 F.3d 8 157, 163 (2d Cir. 2006); In re M‐S‐, 22 I. & N. Dec. 349, 353–55 (BIA ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals