16-2843 Juarez-Munoz v. Sessions BIA Montante, IJ A200 562 138 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 17th day of November, two thousand 5 seventeen. 6 7 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 FRANCISCO RONALDI JUAREZ-MUNOZ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-2843 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jose Perez, Syracuse, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Cindy S.Ferrier, 27 Assistant Director; Song E. Park, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel, Office 29 of Immigration Litigation, United 30 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 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Francisco Ronaldi Juarez-Munoz, a native and 6 citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a July 13, 2016, 7 decision of the BIA affirming a June 4, 2015, decision of 8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Juarez-Munoz’s motions 9 to reconsider and reopen. In re Francisco Ronaldi Juarez- 10 Munoz, No. A 200 562 138 (B.I.A. July 13, 2016), aff’g No. A 11 200 562 138 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo, N.Y. June 4, 2015). We 12 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 13 and procedural history in this case. 14 We review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the 15 BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 16 2005). We review the denial of motions to reconsider and 17 reopen for abuse of discretion. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 18 546 F.3d 138, 173 (2d Cir. 2008). “An abuse of discretion 19 may be found in those circumstances where the . . . 20 decision provides no rational explanation, inexplicably 21 departs from established policies, is devoid of any 2 1 reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory 2 statements.” Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) 3 (internal quotation marks omitted). 4 A motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days of 5 the “entry ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals