17-3170 Daikoku v. Barr BIA A079 713 216 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 15th day of May, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ALEX R. DAIKOKU, AKA ALEX RUBEN 14 DAIKOKU, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 17-3170 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Musa-Obregon, White 25 Plains, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, 29 Assistant Director; Julia J. 30 Tyler, Trial Attorney, Office of 31 Immigration Litigation, United 32 States Department of Justice, 33 Washington, 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 petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Alex R. Daikoku, a native and citizen of 6 Panama, seeks review of a September 6, 2017, decision of the 7 BIA, denying his third motion to reopen. In re Alex R. 8 Daikoku, No. A079 713 216 (B.I.A. Sept. 6, 2017). We assume 9 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 10 procedural history in this case. 11 The applicable standards of review are well established. 12 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 13 2008). In his motion to reopen, Daikoku asserted that his 14 removal proceedings should be reopened because the visa 15 petition that his U.S. citizen wife had filed on his behalf 16 had been approved and he was eligible to apply for a waiver 17 of inadmissibility and adjustment of status. 18 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying 19 Daikoku’s 2016 motion as untimely and number barred because 20 it was his third motion to reopen filed more than three 21 years after his removal order became final in 2012. See 2 1 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i) (limiting noncitizens to 2 one motion to reopen and setting a 90-day deadline for such 3 motions); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (same). His wife’s 4 approved visa petition and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals