19-2456 Lopez-Abrego v. Garland BIA Cheng, IJ A078 679 873 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 18th day of November, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MATEO LOPEZ-ABREGO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-2456 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Pankaj Malik, Esq., New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 26 General; Jessica A. Dawgert , 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Lori B. 28 Warlick, Trial Attorney, Office of 1 Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, DC. 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Mateo Lopez-Abrego, a native and citizen of 9 El Salvador, seeks review of a July 11, 2019, decision of the 10 BIA affirming a January 29, 2019, decision of an Immigration 11 Judge (“IJ”) denying his motion to rescind a 2002 removal 12 order and reopen his removal proceedings. In re Mateo Lopez- 13 Abrego, No. A 078 679 873 (B.I.A. July 11, 2019), aff’g No. A 14 078 679 873 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Jan 29, 2019). We assume the 15 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 16 history. 17 We review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. 18 See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). 19 We review the agency’s denial of a motion to rescind and 20 reopen for abuse of discretion. See Alrefae v. Chertoff, 471 21 F.3d 353, 357 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[A] motion to rescind is a 22 type of motion to reopen.”); Kaur v. Bd. of Immigr. Appeals, 23 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (reviewing denial of motion 2 1 to reopen for abuse of discretion). “An abuse of discretion 2 may be found . . . where the [agency’s] decision provides no 3 rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established 4 policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals