18‐2167 Duarte v. Barr BIA Strauss, IJ A 098 594 072/073 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 COURTʹS 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 ʺSUMMARY ORDERʺ). 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 23rd day of March, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, DENNY CHIN, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ LEIDA CRISTINA DUARTE and G.D.N., Petitioners, v. 18‐2167‐ag WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ FOR PETITIONERS: MARY FODEN, DeCastro Foden, LLC, Hartford, Connecticut; Gerald R. Nowotny, Latin American Law Center, Canton, Connecticut. FOR RESPONDENT: ELIZABETH K. FITZGERALD‐SAMBOU, Trial Attorney, Margaret Kuehne Taylor, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, for Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Washington, D.C. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the ʺBIAʺ), IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioners Leida Cristina Duarte and her minor daughter, natives and citizens of Brazil, seek review of a July 2, 2018 decision of the BIA affirming an October 12, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (ʺIJʺ) denying Duarteʹs motion to reopen the proceedings to rescind an in absentia removal order. In re Leida Cristina Duarte, G.D.N., Nos. A 098 594 072/073 (B.I.A. Jul. 2, 2018), aff’g Nos. A 098 594 072/073 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Oct. 12, 2017). We assume the partiesʹ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of this case, and the issues on appeal. We review the IJʹ s decision as supplemented by the BIA. Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review motions to reopen removal proceedings for abuse of discretion. Mahmood v. Holder, 570 F.3d 466, 469 (2d Cir. 2009); Alrefae v. Chertoff, 471 F.3d 353, 357 (2d Cir. 2006). The BIA has ʺbroad discretionʺ to grant or deny such a motion. I.N.S. v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 96 (1988); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). 2 As a general matter, a petitioner cannot appeal directly to the BIA from an order of deportation that was issued in absentia. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C); In re Guzman, 22 I. & N. Dec. 722, 723 (BIA 1999) (holding that the BIA is ʺwithout authority to consider a direct appeal from an in absentia orderʺ). Instead, a petitioner seeking to rescind such an order must first file a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals