19-1420 Chen v. Wilkinson BIA A098 113 319 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 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 2nd day of February, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 GUIDO CALABRESI, 9 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 DAN LIN-CHEN, AKA DAN CHEN, 13 Petitioner, 14 15 v. 19-1420 16 NAC 17 ROBERT M. WILKINSON, ACTING 18 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 Respondent. 1 20 _____________________________________ 21 22 FOR PETITIONER: Richard Tarzia, Esq., Belle Mead, 23 NJ. 24 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Robert M. Wilkinson is automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen as Respondent. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Assistant Attorney General; Nancy 2 Friedman, Senior Litigation 3 Counsel, Margaret A. O’Donnell, 4 Trial Attorney; Office of 5 Immigration Litigation, United 6 States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, DC. 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 DENIED. 12 Petitioner Dan Lin-Chen, a native and citizen of the 13 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 17, 2019, 14 decision of the BIA denying her motion to reopen and 15 reconsider. In re Dan Lin-Chen, No. A098 113 319 (B.I.A. 16 Apr. 17, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 17 underlying facts and procedural history. 18 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen or 19 reconsider for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 20 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006); Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 21 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). The BIA did not abuse its 22 discretion in denying Lin-Chen’s 2018 motion as untimely 23 either as a motion to reopen or reconsider because her removal 24 order was final in 2007. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6) (giving 25 30 days from challenged decision to file motion to 2 1 reconsider), (7)(C)(i) (giving 90 days from final order to 2 file motion to reopen). 3 Additionally, the BIA’s alternate denial on the merits 4 was correct. Lin-Chen argued that under Pereira v. Sessions, 5 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2114 (2018), ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals