19-1637 Hossain-Manik v. Garland BIA A208 680 439 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 10th day of March, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 MICHAEL H. PARK, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 TOFAJJAL HOSSAIN-MANIK, AKA 14 TOFAJJAL HOSSAIN MANIK, AKA 15 TOFAJJAL HOSSAINMANIK, AKA 16 TOFAJJAL MANIK, 17 Petitioner, 18 19 v. 19-1637 20 NAC 21 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 22 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 23 Respondent. 24 _____________________________________ 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: Patrick Crowley, Esq., New York, 27 NY. 28 29 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 30 Attorney General; Margaret Kuehne 31 Taylor, Senior Litigation Counsel; 32 Katherine S. Fischer, Trial 33 Attorney, Office of Immigration 1 Litigation, United States 2 Department of Justice, Washington, 3 DC. 4 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 for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Tofajjal Hossain-Manik, a native and citizen 10 of Bangladesh, seeks review of an April 29, 2019 decision of 11 the BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re Tofajjal 12 Hossain-Manik, No. A 208 680 439 (B.I.A. Apr. 29, 2019). We 13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 14 procedural history in this case. 15 We find no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s denial of 16 Hossain-Manik’s motion for reconsideration. See Jian Hui 17 Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 173 (2d Cir. 2008). A “motion 18 [to reconsider] shall specify the errors of law or fact in 19 the previous order and shall be supported by pertinent 20 authority.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C); see also 8 C.F.R. 21 § 1003.2(b)(1). A motion to reconsider “is a request that 22 the Board reexamine its decision in light of additional legal 23 arguments, a change of law, or perhaps an argument or aspect 24 of the case which was overlooked.” Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 2 1 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks 2 omitted). If the movant asserts a change in the law, he must 3 also show how that change “materially affects” the outcome …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals