18-65 Krasniqi v. Barr BIA A078 719 302 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 October, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 8 Chief Judge, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 AGRON KRASNIQI, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-65 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Charles Christophe, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 27 Attorney General; Mary Jane 28 Candaux, Assistant Director; Remi 29 da Rocha-Afodu, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 31 United States Department of 32 Justice, 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 DISMISSED. 5 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 6 abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d 7 Cir. 2006). An alien may file one motion to reopen no later 8 than 90 days after the final administrative decision is 9 rendered. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. 10 § 1003.2(c)(2). It is undisputed that Krasniqi’s August 2017 11 motion was time and number barred because it was his third 12 motion to reopen, filed more than 14 years after the BIA’s 13 May 2003 decision dismissing his appeal of his removal order. 14 While there are limited exceptions to the 90-day time 15 limitation, Krasniqi does not assert that any of them apply. 16 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); Rashid v. Mukasey, 533 17 F.3d 127, 130 (2d Cir. 2008); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3). His 18 eligibility to adjust status based on his marriage does not 19 implicate any exception. See Matter of Yauri, 25 I. & N. 20 Dec. 103, 105 (BIA 2009). 21 Even when a motion to reopen is untimely, the BIA has 22 regulatory authority to reopen sua sponte. See 8 C.F.R. 2 1 § 1003.2(a). The agency invokes its sua sponte authority 2 only in “exceptional situations,” not as a “general cure for 3 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals