20-3781 Crisostomo-Temaj v. Garland BIA Hochul, IJ A 208 908 012 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 24th day of October, two thousand twenty- two. PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ BELISARIO CRISOSTOMO-TEMAJ, Petitioner, v. 20-3781 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Jose Perez, Law Offices of Jose Perez, P.C., Syracuse, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Holly M. Smith, Assistant Director; Nehal H. Kamani, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Belisario Crisostomo-Temaj, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of an October 5, 2020 decision of the BIA summarily affirming a May 15, 2020 decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”), which denied his motion to rescind his order of removal entered in absentia. In re Crisostomo-Temaj, No. A 208 908 012 (B.I.A. Oct. 5, 2020), aff’g No. A 208 908 012 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo May 15, 2020). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Because the BIA issued a summary affirmance, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency decision. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008). We review the agency’s denial of a motion to rescind for abuse of discretion. Alrefae v. Chertoff, 471 F.3d 353, 357 (2d Cir. 2006). “An abuse of discretion may be found in those 2 circumstances where the [agency]’s decision provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where the [agency] has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233–34 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). If a noncitizen fails to appear at his removal proceedings after being provided with written notice, the noncitizen “shall be ordered removed in absentia if [DHS] establishes by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the written notice was so provided and that the alien is removable.” 8 U.S.C. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals