19-4087 Mbagoyisahaha v. Garland BIA A095 967 493 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 the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 21st day of December, two thousand 4 twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 CRISTIAN MBAGOYISAHAHA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-4087 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 1 FOR PETITIONER: Paul B. Grotas, Esq., New York, NY. 2 3 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant 4 Attorney General; Keith I. McManus, 5 Assistant Director; Nelle M. Seymour, Trial 6 Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 7 United States Department of Justice, 8 Washington, DC. 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 10 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 11 DECREED that the petition for review is DISMISSED. 12 Petitioner Cristian Mbagoyisahaha, a native and citizen of Angola, seeks 13 review of a November 12, 2019 decision of the BIA denying his third motion to 14 reopen. In re Cristian Mbagoyisahaha, No. A 095 967 493 (B.I.A. Nov. 12, 2019). 15 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 16 history. 17 We dismiss the petition for review because we lack jurisdiction to consider 18 it. All agree that Mbagoyisahaha’s 2019 motion to reopen – his third such motion, 19 filed more than 15 years after his 2004 removal order – was untimely and number 20 barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i). Mbagoyisahaha requested 21 reopening to pursue adjustment of status, which does not implicate any exceptions 22 to the time and number limitations. Id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii)–(iv) (listing 2 1 exceptions); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) (same); see Matter of Yauri, 25 I. & N. Dec. 103, 2 105 (B.I.A. 2009) (“emphasiz[ing] that untimely motions to reopen to pursue an 3 application for adjustment of status . . . do not fall within any of the statutory or 4 regulatory exceptions to the time limits for motions to reopen before the Board 5 and will ordinarily be denied”). 6 Thus, Mbagoyisahaha’s motion necessarily relied on the BIA’s authority to 7 reopen his proceedings sua sponte. See Mahmood …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals