17-2969 Farid v. Barr BIA Lamb, IJ A079 713 969 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 July, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MUHAMMAD ABDUL FARID, AKA 14 MOHAMMAD ABDUL FAREED, 15 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 17-2969 19 NAC 20 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 21 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 23 Respondent. 24 _____________________________________ 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: Sanjay Chaubey, New York, NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 1 Attorney General; Keith I. 2 McManus, Assistant Director; 3 Rosanne M. Perry, Trial Attorney, 4 Office of Immigration Litigation, 5 United States Department of 6 Justice, Washington, DC. 7 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. 12 Petitioner Muhammad Abdul Farid, a native and citizen of 13 Pakistan, seeks review of an August 25, 2017 decision of the 14 BIA affirming a March 13, 2017 decision of an Immigration 15 Judge (“IJ”) denying his motion to reopen. In Muhammad Abdul 16 Farid, No. A079 713 969 (B.I.A. Aug. 25, 2017), aff’g No. 17 A079 713 969 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 13, 2017). We assume 18 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 19 procedural history in this case, and the issues on appeal. 20 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 21 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen 22 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the 23 agency’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 24 Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). An alien 25 generally may file one motion to reopen no later than 90 days 26 after the final administrative decision is rendered. 2 1 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(2), 2 1003.23(b)(1). It is undisputed that Farid’s motion was 3 untimely because he filed it more than ten years after an IJ 4 ordered ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals