19-719 Dutt v. Garland BIA A089 577 493 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 23rd day of September, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GERARD E. LYNCH, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MANU DUTT, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-719 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael W. Ross, Jacob D. 24 Alderdice, Jenner & Block LLP, New 25 York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Julie M. 29 Iversen, Senior Litigation 1 Counsel; Lynda A. Do, Trial 2 Attorney, Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 DC. 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is GRANTED. 10 Petitioner Manu Dutt, a native and citizen of India, 11 seeks review of a March 12, 2019, decision of the BIA denying 12 his motion to reopen to apply for cancellation of removal. 13 In re Manu Dutt, No. A 089 577 493 (B.I.A. Mar. 12, 2019). 14 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 15 and procedural history. 16 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 17 abuse of discretion. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 18 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). “An abuse of discretion may be found 19 in those circumstances where the [BIA’s] decision provides no 20 rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established 21 policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary 22 or conclusory statements; that is to say, where the [BIA] has 23 acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Ke Zhen Zhao 2 1 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir. 2001) 2 (internal citations omitted). 3 The agency may deny a motion to reopen if a noncitizen 4 fails to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief 5 sought. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104–05 (1988); 6 Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70, 78 (2d Cir. 2005) 7 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals