19-3819 Liao v. Garland BIA A078 213 203 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 22nd day of November, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 GUO MEI LIAO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-3819 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jed S. Wasserman, Law Office of Ng 24 & Wasserman, PLLC, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Clark, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Anna E. Juarez, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Jeffrey 29 R. Meyer, Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United 31 States Department of Justice, 32 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 GRANTED. 5 Petitioner Guo Mei Liao, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 23, 7 2019, decision of the BIA denying her motion to reconsider 8 and reopen. In re Guo Mei Liao, No. A 078 213 203 (B.I.A. 9 Oct. 23, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 10 underlying facts and procedural history. 11 We review the BIA’s denial of motions to reconsider and 12 reopen for abuse of discretion. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 13 546 F.3d 138, 168-69, 173 (2d Cir. 2008). Liao’s 2018 motion 14 was untimely filed more than 16 years after her 2002 removal 15 order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B) (30-day deadline for 16 motion to reconsider), (7)(C)(i) (90-day deadline for motion 17 to reopen). Liao argues that the BIA should have excused the 18 time limit in light of Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 19 (2018), but the BIA alternatively determined that 20 reconsideration and reopening were not warranted because Liao 21 failed to establish either her prima facie eligibility for 2 1 cancellation of removal as required to reopen or exceptional 2 circumstances that warranted reopening sua sponte. See INS 3 v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988) (failure to establish prima 4 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals