18-483 Czyz v. Barr BIA A073 592 994 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 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 12th day of August, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SEBASTIAN CZYZ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-483 17 NAC 18 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Dana R. Bucin, Barry J. Waters, 25 Murtha Cullina LLP, Hartford, CT. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 28 Attorney General; Rebekah Nahas, 29 Katherine A. Smith, Trial 30 Attorneys, Office of Immigration 31 Litigation, United States 32 Department of Justice, Washington, 33 DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the motion to hold the 4 petition for review in abeyance and the petition for review 5 are DENIED. 6 Petitioner Sebastian Czyz, a native and citizen of 7 Poland, seeks review of a February 12, 2018, decision of the 8 BIA, denying his motion to reopen. In re Sebastian Czyz, No. 9 A073 592 994 (B.I.A. Feb. 12, 2018). We assume the parties’ 10 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 11 Motion to Reopen 12 The applicable standards of review are well established. 13 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 14 2008). It is undisputed that Czyz’s 2017 motion to reopen 15 was untimely because it was filed more than 18 years after 16 his 1999 removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) 17 (“[T]he motion to reopen shall be filed within 90 days of the 18 date of entry of a final administrative order of removal.”); 19 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (same). 20 Ineffective assistance of counsel can be a basis for 21 equitable relief from the time limitation on motions to 22 reopen. See Iavorski v. U.S. INS, 232 F.3d 124, 127 (2d Cir. 2 1 2000). The BIA found Czyz’s ineffective assistance claim 2 foreclosed because he failed to comply with Matter of Lozada, 3 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), which ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals