20-2253 Monge v. Garland BIA A070 985 529 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 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 16th day of December, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 MICHAEL H. PARK, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 EUNICE C. LEE, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 HUMBERTO MONGE, AKA, 15 SEGUNDO HUMBERTO MONGE 16 SIRANAULA, AKA, CARLOS MONGE, 17 Petitioner, 18 19 v. 20-2253 20 NAC 21 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 22 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 23 Respondent. 24 _____________________________________ 25 26 1 FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, Esq., Youman, 2 Madeo & Fasano, LLP, New York, NY. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 5 Attorney General; Sabatino F. Leo, 6 Assistant Director; Greg D. Mack, 7 Senior Litigation Counsel, Office 8 of Immigration Litigation, United 9 States Department of Justice, 10 Washington, DC. 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 12 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 13 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 14 is DENIED. 15 Petitioner Humberto Monge, a native and citizen of 16 Ecuador, seeks review of a June 16, 2020 decision of the BIA 17 denying his March 2, 2020 motion to reopen his removal 18 proceedings to pursue cancellation of removal. In re 19 Humberto Monge, No. A070 985 529 (B.I.A. June 16, 2020). We 20 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 21 procedural history. 22 Monge sought to reopen his removal proceedings on the 23 ground that his former counsel rendered ineffective 24 assistance. Specifically, he asserted that his former 25 counsel should have argued that his Connecticut larceny 26 conviction was not a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) 2 1 and thus did not render him ineligible for cancellation of 2 removal. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for 3 abuse of discretion. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 4 138, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). “An abuse will be found only in 5 those limited circumstances where the BIA’s decision 6 (1) provides no rational explanation, (2) inexplicably 7 departs from established policies, (3) is devoid of any 8 reasoning, or (4) contains only summary or conclusory 9 statements.” Song Jin Wu …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals