22-6451(L) Losonczi v. Garland BIA Norkin, IJ A215 556 014 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 A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 17th day of July, two thousand twenty-three. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, EUNICE C. LEE, SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ANDRAS LOSONCZI, Petitioner, v. 22-6451(L), 22-6490(Con) MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Jimmy Johnson, Esq., Law Offices of Jimmy Johnson PLLC, Flushing, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Dawn S. Conrad, Senior Litigation Counsel; Stephen Finn, Senior Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the petition in 22-6451 is DENIED, and the government’s motion to dismiss the petition in 22-6490 is GRANTED. All other pending motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED. In these consolidated appeals, petitioner Andras Losonczi (“Losonczi”), a native and citizen of Hungary, seeks review of two decisions of the BIA. In the lead case, 22- 6451, Losonczi seeks review of a BIA decision summarily dismissing his appeal of a decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). See In re Andras Losonczi, No. A 215 556 014 (B.I.A. Sept. 7, 2022), dismissing No. A 215 556 014 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Sept. 2, 2020). In the consolidated case, 22-6490, Losonczi seeks review of a BIA decision affirming an IJ’s decision denying his motion for a change of custody status. See In re Andras Losonczi, No. A 215 556 014 (B.I.A. Sept. 15, 2021), aff’g No. A 215 556 014 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. April 23, 2021). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history and recite them here only as necessary to our decision. We have reviewed the BIA’s decision summarily dismissing the appeal. See Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 432 F.3d 156, 159 (2d Cir. 2005) (“When the BIA issues its own independent decision and does not adopt the IJ’s decision, this Court reviews the decision of the BIA alone.”). We review factual findings for substantial evidence, and 2 questions of law, including constitutional claims, de novo. See Dale v. Barr, 967 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals