20-189 Kandic v. Garland BIA A076 002 014 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 14th day of February, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 REENA RAGGI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 HAKO KANDIC, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-189 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Marotta, Law Office of 24 Gregory Marotta, Vernon, NJ. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 27 Assistant Attorney General; 28 Jessica E. Burns, Senior 29 Litigation Counsel; Juria L. 1 Jones, Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, D.C. 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 Hako Kandic, a native of the former Yugoslavia 10 and citizen of Montenegro, seeks review of a December 19, 11 2019 decision of the BIA denying his third motion to reopen. 12 In re Hako Kandic, No. A 076 002 014 (B.I.A. Dec. 19, 2019). 13 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 14 and procedural history. 15 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 16 abuse of discretion. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 17 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). “We will identify such abuse only if 18 the Board’s decision inexplicably departs from established 19 policies or is so devoid of rational explanation as to raise 20 concern that it acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” 21 Scarlett v. Barr, 957 F.3d 316, 326 (2d Cir. 2020) (internal 22 quotation marks omitted). We find no abuse of discretion 23 here. 24 Kandic’s motion to reopen, his third such motion, filed 2 1 approximately 15 years after the agency’s final order of 2 removal, was both untimely and number barred. See 8 U.S.C. 3 § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i) (authorizing petitioner to file one 4 motion to reopen proceedings within 90 days of final 5 administrative order of removal); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) 6 (same). The time …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals