19-2253 Herrera-Antunez v. Garland BIA A206 436 152 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 28th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 RICCY ISELA HERRERA-ANTUNEZ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-2253 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Nicholas J. Mundy, Esq., 24 Brooklyn, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Justin R. Markel, Senior 28 Litigation Counsel; Sharon M. 1 Clay, Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, Civil 3 Division, United States Department 4 of Justice, Washington, DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Riccy Isela Herrera-Antunez, a native and 9 citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a June 11, 2019, BIA 10 decision denying her motion to reopen. In re Riccy Isela 11 Herrera-Antunez, No. A 206 436 152 (B.I.A. Jun. 11, 2019). 12 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 13 and procedural history. 14 We review the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen for 15 abuse of discretion. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 16 138, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). “An abuse of discretion may be 17 found in those circumstances where the [BIA’s] decision 18 provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from 19 established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains 20 only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where 21 the [BIA] has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Ke 22 Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir. 23 2001) (internal citations omitted). 2 1 The BIA did not abuse its discretion. As Herrera-Antunez 2 concedes, her argument under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 3 2105 (2018), that her notice to appear (“NTA”) was 4 insufficient to vest jurisdiction with the immigration court, 5 is foreclosed by our decision in Banegas Gomez v. Barr, 922 6 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals