18-1711 (L) Duncan v. Barr BIA A040 120 633 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 20th day of May, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 CLAUDE ALPHONSO DUNCAN, AKA 14 ALPHONSO DUNCAN, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-1711(L), 18 18-2692(Con) 19 NAC 20 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 21 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Tiffany A. Javier, Kerry W. Bretz, 26 Bretz & Coven, LLP, New York, NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 29 General; Terri J. Scadron, 30 Assistant Director; Corey L. 31 Farrell, Attorney, Office of 32 Immigration Litigation, United 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, DC. 3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of 4 two Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is 5 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for 6 review are DENIED. 7 Petitioner Claude Alphonso Duncan, a native and citizen 8 of Jamaica, seeks review of a May 8, 2018 decision of the BIA 9 denying his motion to reopen his deportation proceedings and 10 an August 13, 2018 decision of the BIA denying his motion to 11 reconsider that decision. In re Claude Alphonso Duncan, No. 12 A 040 120 633 (B.I.A. May 8 & Aug. 13, 2018). We assume the 13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 14 history. 15 We review a denial of a motion to reopen and reconsider 16 for abuse of discretion. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 17 138, 168–69, 173 (2d Cir. 2008). 18 Motions to reopen proceedings where the agency entered a 19 deportation order in absentia are governed by different rules 20 depending on whether the movant seeks to rescind the order or 21 reopen to present new evidence of eligibility for relief from 22 removal. See Song Jin Wu v. INS, 436 F.3d 157, 163–64 (2d 23 Cir. 2006); In re M-S-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 349, 353–55 (B.I.A. 2 1 1998). Accordingly, when, as here, “an alien files a single 2 motion that seeks both rescission of an in absentia removal 3 order . ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals