20-4105 Morraz Diaz v. Garland BIA Conroy, IJ A216 207 299 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 12th day of June, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 RUBEN ALFONSO MORRAZ DIAZ, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-4105 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Bruno Joseph Bembi, 25 Hempstead, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Holly M. Smith , 1 Assistant Director; Aric A. 2 Anderson, Trial Attorney, Office 3 of Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, DC. 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is GRANTED. 10 Petitioner Ruben Alfonso Morraz Diaz, a native and 11 citizen of Nicaragua, seeks review of a decision of the BIA 12 affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying 13 his motion to rescind his removal order and reopen his removal 14 proceedings. In re Ruben Alfonso Morraz Diaz, No. A 216 207 15 299 (B.I.A. Nov. 16, 2020), aff’g No. A 216 207 299 (Immig. 16 Ct. N.Y.C. Feb. 24, 2020). We assume the parties’ 17 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 18 We have reviewed the decision of the IJ as supplemented 19 by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 20 Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s denial of a motion to 21 rescind a removal order entered in absentia for abuse of 22 discretion. Alrefae v. Chertoff, 471 F.3d 353, 357 (2d Cir. 23 2006). An abuse of discretion “may be found if the decision 24 provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from 2 1 established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains 2 only summary or conclusory statements,” id. (internal 3 quotation marks omitted), or if the agency “has misunderstood 4 or misapplied the governing law,” Abu Hasirah v. DHS, 478 5 F.3d 474, 477 (2d Cir. 2007). We review …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals