22-192 Chhabra v. Blinken 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 Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 3 New York, on the 13th day of December, two thousand twenty-two. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 AMALYA L. KEARSE, 7 MICHAEL H. PARK, 8 MYRNA PÉREZ, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 Dr. Vijay Chhabra, Ranjna Chhabra, 13 14 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 15 16 v. 22-192 17 18 Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State, United 19 States Department of State, Alejandro 20 Mayorkas, Secretary of DHS, United States 21 Department of Homeland Security, Ur M. 22 Jaddou, Director of USCIS, United States 23 Citizenship & Immigration Services, 24 25 Defendants-Appellees.* 26 27 _____________________________________ 28 29 * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above. 1 1 FOR PLAINTIFFS–APPELLANTS: THOMAS E. MOSELEY, Esq., 2 Newark, NJ. 3 4 FOR DEFENDANTS–APPELLEES: VARUNI NELSON, Assistant 5 U.S. Attorney (Layaliza 6 Soloveichik, Assistant U.S. 7 Attorney, on the brief) for 8 Breon Peace, U.S. Attorney, 9 Eastern District of New 10 York, Brooklyn, NY. 11 12 Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New 13 York (Glasser, J.). 14 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 15 DECREED that the order of the district court is AFFIRMED. 16 Plaintiffs-Appellants Dr. Vijay Chhabra (“Chhabra”) and Ranjna Chhabra appeal the 17 district court’s order granting the government’s motion to dismiss and denying their motions for 18 summary judgment and to amend their complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 19 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal. 20 Plaintiffs asked the district court to find that Chhabra’s conviction for tax evasion under 26 21 U.S.C. § 7201, for which he was ordered removed from the United States, is not a crime involving 22 moral turpitude (“CIMT”) and to direct that his visa to re-enter the United States be processed with 23 “reasonable promptness” by the consular office in New Delhi, India. The government moved to 24 dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Plaintiffs moved 25 for summary judgment and to amend their complaint. 26 We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for 27 failure …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals