Nguti v. Sessions

15-3461 Nguti v. Sessions BIA Montante, IJ A095 896 806 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 2nd day of March, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 EDWIN FRU NGUTI, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 15-3461 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Cleland B. Welton, II, Quinn 24 Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, 25 New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, 29 Assistant Director; Kristen 30 Giuffreda Chapman, Trial Attorney, 31 Office of Immigration Litigation, 32 United States Department of Justice, 33 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 4 GRANTED. 5 Petitioner Edwin Fru Nguti, a native and citizen of 6 Cameroon, seeks review of a September 28, 2015, decision of the 7 BIA affirming an April 14, 2014, decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying his motion to reopen. In re Edwin Fru 9 Nguti, No. A095 896 806 (B.I.A. Sept. 28, 2015), aff’g No. A095 10 896 806 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Apr. 14, 2014). We assume the 11 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 12 history in this case. 13 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for 14 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 15 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable 16 standards of review are well established. Jian Hui Shao v. 17 Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). In his motion 18 to reopen, Nguti sought to file a successive asylum application, 19 asserting that conditions in Cameroon had changed such that he 20 has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his support 21 for the opposition political party. 22 An alien seeking to reopen proceedings may file a motion 23 to reopen no later than 90 days after the date on which the final 2 1 administrative ...

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