Mullar v. Sessions

16-3426 Mullar v. Sessions BIA A087 445 586/587/588 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 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 8th day of January, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SATPAL SINGH MULLAR, JASPAL KAUR 14 MULLAR, SUKHKIRANDEEP SINGH 15 MULLAR, 16 Petitioners, 17 18 v. 16-3426 19 NAC 20 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, 21 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONERS: Genet Getachew, Brooklyn, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Anthony W. 29 Norwood, Senior Litigation 30 Counsel; Colin J. Tucker, Trial 31 Attorney, Office of Immigration 32 33 1 Litigation, United States 2 Department of Justice, Washington, 3 DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioners Satpal Singh Mullar (“Mullar”), Jaspal Kaur 10 Mullar, and Sukhkirandeep Singh Mullar, natives and citizens 11 of India, seek review of a September 19, 2016, decision of 12 the BIA denying their motion to reopen. In re Satpal Singh 13 Mullar, Jaspal Kaur Mullar, Sukhkirandeep Singh Mullar, Nos. 14 A 087 445 586/587/588 (B.I.A. Sept. 19, 2016). We assume the 15 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 16 history in this case. 17 We review the BIA’s decision for abuse of discretion. 18 Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). “An 19 abuse of discretion may be found in those circumstances 20 where the Board’s decision provides no rational 21 explanation, inexplicably departs from established 22 policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only 23 summary or conclusory statements.” Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 24 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 1 We review the BIA’s factual findings about country 2 conditions for substantial evidence. Jian Hui Shao v. 3 Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). 4 It is undisputed that Mullar’s motion to reopen, filed 5 almost three years after the final administrative decision 6 was rendered, was untimely. 8 U.S.C. § ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals