18-696 McPherson v. Wilkinson BIA A087 264 608 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 18th day of February, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 DELROY HORACE MCPHERSON, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-696 17 NAC 18 ROBERT M. WILKINSON, ACTING 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 1 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Delroy Horace McPherson, pro se, 24 Bloomfield, CT. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: [VACANT], Assistant Attorney 1 Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Robert M. Wilkinson is automatically substituted for former Attorney General William P. Barr. 1 General; Song E. Park, Acting 2 Assistant Director; Aaron D. 3 Nelson, Trial Attorney, Office of 4 Immigration Litigation, United 5 States Department of Justice, 6 Washington, DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Delroy Horace McPherson, a native and citizen 12 of Jamaica, seeks review of a February 23, 2018, decision of 13 the BIA denying his fifth motion to reopen his removal 14 proceedings. In re Delroy Horace McPherson, No. A 087 264 15 608 (B.I.A. Feb. 23, 2018). We assume the parties’ 16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 17 We have reviewed the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen 18 for abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 19 517 (2d Cir. 2006). We find no abuse of discretion because 20 an alien seeking to reopen proceedings may file only one 21 motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the final 22 administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 23 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). McPherson’s 2017 motion was untimely 24 and number barred because his removal order was final in 2014 25 and this was his fifth motion to reopen. McPherson’s request 26 to reopen to apply for adjustment of status does not implicate 2 1 any exception to the time and number limitations. See Matter 2 of Yauri, 25 I. & N. Dec. 103, 105 (BIA 2009); ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals