19-489 Magassouba v. Garland BIA A078 430 196 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 14th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MOUSTAPHA MAGASSOUBA, AKA 14 MOUSTAPHA MAGESSOUBA, AKA DYIGBE 15 SANOJANA, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 19-489 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,* 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Moustapha Magassouba, pro se, New 26 York, NY. 27 * The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Emily Anne 3 Radford, Assistant Director; Sarah 4 K. Pergolizzi, Trial Attorney, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 United States Department of 7 Justice, Washington, DC. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Moustapha Magassouba, a native and citizen of 13 Guinea, seeks review of a February 4, 2019, decision of the 14 BIA reissuing its August 2018 denial of his motions to reopen 15 and reconsider, and again denying reconsideration. In re 16 Moustapha Magassouba, No. A 078 430 196 (B.I.A. Feb. 4, 2019). 17 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 18 and procedural history in this case. 19 The petition for review is timely only as to the BIA’s 20 denial of reopening and reconsideration, and we do not reach 21 Magassouba’s challenges to the underlying removal order and 22 denial of relief. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 23 265 F.3d 83, 89–90 (2d Cir. 2001). We review the BIA’s denial 24 of a motion to reopen or reconsider for abuse of discretion 25 and review factual findings regarding country conditions for 2 1 substantial evidence. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 2 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008) (motion to reopen and country 3 conditions findings); Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 4 111 (2d Cir. 2006) (motion to reconsider). 5 Reopening 6 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals