18-3784 Hui v. Garland BIA A098 470 005 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 24th day of March, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 HONGLIAN HUI, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-3784 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. * 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jim Li, Esq., Shanshan Zheng, 24 Esq., Flushing, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Kohsei Ugumori , Senior Litigation 27 Counsel; Jesse D. Lorenz, Trial * Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 Attorney, Office of Immigration 2 Litigation, United States 3 Department of Justice, Washington, 4 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 for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Honglian Hui, a native and citizen of the 10 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 26, 11 2018 decision of the BIA denying her motion to reopen her 12 administrative proceedings. In re Honglian Hui, No. A 098 470 13 005 (B.I.A. Nov. 26, 2018). We assume the parties’ 14 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 15 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 16 abuse of discretion. See Debeatham v. Holder, 602 F.3d 481, 17 484 (2d Cir. 2010). An alien may file one motion to reopen 18 no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision. 19 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). 20 Hui’s 2018 motion to reopen was untimely, as it was filed 21 almost four years after the BIA’s 2014 decision. Further, 22 her 2018 motion was number barred because she filed a previous 23 motion to reopen in 2017. Although the doctrine of equitable 2 1 tolling may provide an exception to these limitations where 2 an alien advances an argument of ineffective assistance of 3 counsel, we find no error in the BIA’s conclusion that 4 equitable tolling was not warranted here. To …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals