21-6526 Campbell v. Garland BIA A215 929 051 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 2nd day of March, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 RAYON UINARDO CAMPBELL, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 21-6526 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Rayon Uinardo Campbell, pro se, 25 Poughkeepsie, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Principal 28 Deputy Assistant Attorney General; 1 Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant 2 Director; Elizabeth M. Dewar, 3 Trial Attorney, Office of 4 Immigration Litigation, United 5 States Department of Justice, 6 Washington, DC. 7 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DISMISSED. 12 Petitioner Rayon Uinardo Campbell, a native and citizen 13 of Jamaica, seeks review of a September 21, 2021, decision of 14 the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Rayon Uinardo 15 Campbell, No. A 215 929 051 (B.I.A. Sept. 21, 2021). We 16 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 17 procedural history. 18 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 19 abuse of discretion. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 20 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). The BIA abuses its discretion when 21 it “provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs 22 from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or 23 contains only summary or conclusory statements.” Qin Wen 24 Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146 (2d Cir. 2007) (quotation 25 marks omitted). 2 1 The BIA denied Campbell’s motion to reopen to apply for 2 voluntary departure because his evidence of reduced criminal 3 charges would not change the discretionary determination that 4 he did not merit voluntary departure. See INS v. Abudu, 485 5 U.S. 94, 104–05 (1988) (“[I]n cases in which the ultimate 6 grant of relief is discretionary . . . , the BIA may leap 7 ahead . . . over the two threshold concerns (prima …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals