19-1841 Martinez Soriano v. Garland BIA Thompson, IJ A073 548 354 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 20th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 MICHAEL H. PARK, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ALBERTO MARTINEZ SORIANO, 14 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-1841 18 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Alberto Martinez Soriano, pro se, 26 Newburgh, NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 29 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, 30 Assistant Director; Elizabeth Chapman, 31 Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration 32 Litigation, United States Department 33 of Justice, Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 4 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Alberto Martinez Soriano, a native and citizen of 6 Mexico, seeks review of a May 23, 2019 decision of the BIA, 7 dismissing as untimely his appeal of an October 26, 2018 order of 8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) pretermitting his application for 9 cancellation of removal and ordering him removed. In re Alberto 10 Martinez Soriano, No. A073 548 354 (B.I.A. May 23, 2019), aff’g 11 No. A073 548 354 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Oct. 26, 2018). We assume the 12 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 13 history. 14 Under the circumstances, we review only the BIA’s decision 15 dismissing as untimely Martinez Soriano’s appeal of the IJ’s 16 decision. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 17 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. 18 See Khan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 255, 259 (2d Cir. 2007) 19 (reviewing dismissal of appeal as untimely for abuse of 20 discretion); Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 21 288–90 (2d Cir. 2007) (reviewing factual findings for substantial 22 evidence and questions of law de novo); Nwozuzu v. Holder, 726 2 1 F.3d 323, 326–27 (2d Cir. 2013) (reviewing agency statutory 2 interpretation under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals