Gonzales v. Sessions

16-3174 Gonzales v. Sessions BIA A094 923 510 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 16th day of November, two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MARIA JEWEL ELINZANO GONZALES, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-3174 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Felix Q. Vinluan, Woodside, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Russell J.E. 27 Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel; 28 Nancy Kwang Canter, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 4 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Maria Jewel Elinzano Gonzales, a native and 6 citizen of the Philippines, seeks review of an August 15, 2016, 7 decision of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. In re Maria 8 Jewel Elinzano Gonzales, No. A 094 923 510 (B.I.A. Aug. 15, 9 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 10 facts and procedural history in this case. 11 We have reviewed only the BIA’s denial of Gonzales’s 2016 12 motion, not the agency’s underlying decisions. See Ke Zhen 13 Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir. 2001). 14 We review that denial for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 15 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). “An abuse of discretion may 16 be found in those circumstances where the Board’s decision 17 provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from 18 established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains 19 only summary or conclusory statements.” Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 20 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). We 21 review the BIA’s factual findings about country conditions for 22 substantial evidence. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 2 1 169 (2d Cir. 2008). 2 An alien may file one motion to reopen no later than 90 days 3 after the ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals