20-3546 Nehma v. Garland BIA Connelly, IJ A212 171 605 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 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 12th day of April, two thousand 4 twenty-three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 WALID KATHEM NEHMA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-3546 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 20 GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 1 FOR PETITIONER: Russell Reid Abrutyn, Abrutyn Law PLLC, 2 Berkley, MI. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney 5 General; Julie M. Iversen, Senior Litigation 6 Counsel; James A. Hurley, Attorney, Office of 7 Immigration Litigation, United States 8 Department of Justice, 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, 11 AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Walid Kathem Nehma, a native and citizen of Iraq, seeks review 13 of a September 24, 2020 decision of the BIA affirming a November 7, 2018 decision 14 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. 15 See In re Walid Kathem Nehma, No. A 212 171 605 (B.I.A. Sept. 24, 2020), aff’g No. A 16 212 171 605 (Immigr. Ct. Batavia Nov. 7, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 17 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 18 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 19 See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). An alien may file a motion to 20 reopen no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision. See 8 U.S.C. 21 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). 2 1 I. Particularly-Serious-Crime Determination 2 The agency correctly denied reopening based on Nehma’s ineligibility for 3 withholding of removal. 1 An applicant is barred from withholding of removal 4 under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Convention Against Torture 5 (“CAT”) if “the alien, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly 6 serious crime is a danger to the community of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. 7 § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); see 8 C.F.R. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals