20-690 Olivia Renderos v. Garland BIA Vomacka, IJ A206 249 706 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 27th day of December, two thousand twenty- 5 one. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 LEANA PATRICIA OLIVIA RENDEROS, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-690 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Leana Patricia Olivia Renderos, 25 pro se, Hastings, NE. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Jessica A. 1 Dawgert, Senior Litigation 2 Counsel; Lori B. Warlick, Trial 3 Attorney, Office of Immigration 4 Litigation, United States 5 Department of Justice, Washington, 6 DC. 7 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Leana Patricia Olivia Renderos, a native and 13 citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a January 23, 2020 14 decision of the BIA affirming a decision of an Immigration 15 Judge (“IJ”), which denied Olivia Renderos’s motion to 16 rescind her in absentia order of removal. In re Leana 17 Patricia Olivia Renderos, No. A206 249 706 (B.I.A. Jan. 23, 18 2020), aff’g No. A206 249 706 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 23, 19 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 20 underlying facts and procedural history. 21 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. 22 See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 23 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the denial of a motion to rescind 24 an in absentia removal order for abuse of discretion. See 2 1 Alrefae v. Chertoff, 471 F.3d 353, 357 (2d Cir. 2006). 2 The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Olivia 3 Renderos’s motion to rescind. An in absentia removal order 4 “may be rescinded only . . . (i) upon a motion to reopen filed 5 within 180 days after the date of the order of removal if the 6 [movant] demonstrates that the failure to appear was …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals