17-1548 Mansaray v. Barr BIA A090 347 386 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 8th day of July, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 LANSANA MANSARAY, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1548 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Marc Reiter, Esq., Pittsburgh, 24 PA. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Kohsei Ugumori, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel; David 29 Kim, Trial 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 DISMISSED. 5 Petitioner Lansana Mansaray, a native and citizen of 6 Sierra Leone, seeks review of an April 11, 2017, decision of 7 the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Lansana Mansaray, 8 No. A 090 347 386 (B.I.A. Apr. 11, 2017). We assume the 9 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 10 history in this case. 11 “We review the denial of motions to reopen immigration 12 proceedings for abuse of discretion, mindful that motions to 13 reopen ‘are disfavored.’” Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 14 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322-23 15 (1992)). There is a one-year deadline for motions to reopen 16 removal proceedings to apply for lawful immigrant status 17 based on a Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) visa self- 18 petition filed by an alien physically present in the United 19 States. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv). The parties do not 20 dispute that Mansaray’s motion to reopen was untimely. 21 However, the BIA has discretion to “waive this time limitation 22 in the case of an alien who demonstrates extraordinary 2 1 circumstances or extreme hardship to the alien’s child.” 8 2 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)(III). 3 Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), “no court shall 4 have jurisdiction to review . . . (ii) any other decision ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals