18-2953 Doucoure v. Barr BIA A095 862 113 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 22nd day of December, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MAKAN DOUCOURE, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-2953 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Genet Getachew, Law Office of 24 Genet Getachew, Brooklyn, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 27 Assistant Attorney General; 28 Brianne Whelan Cohen, Senior 29 Litigation Counsel; Robbin K. 1 Blaya, Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Makan Doucoure, a native and citizen of 10 Mauritania, seeks review of a September 26, 2018, decision of 11 the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Makan Doucoure, 12 No. A 095 862 113 (B.I.A. Sept. 26, 2018). We assume the 13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 14 history in this case. The applicable standards of review are 15 well established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 16 138, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). 17 Doucoure moved to reopen his proceedings based on his 18 support for an anti-slavery activist group while in the United 19 States and the Mauritanian government’s persecution of anti- 20 slavery groups. It is undisputed that Doucoure’s motion to 21 reopen was untimely and number barred because it was his 22 second motion to reopen filed more than 14 years after he was 23 ordered removed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 2 1 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Although the time and numerical 2 limitations do not apply if the motion is to reopen 3 proceedings in order to apply for asylum “based on changed 4 country conditions arising in the country of nationality or 5 the country to which removal has been ordered, if such 6 evidence is material and was not ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals