17-1604 Orellana-Molina v. Barr BIA Straus, IJ A200 001 007 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 24th day of April, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ FRANCISCO JAVIER ORELLANA- MOLINA, Petitioner, v. 17-1604 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Saad Ahmad, Fremont, CA. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director; Sheri R. Glaser, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Francisco Javier Orellana-Molina, a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a BIA decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Orellana- Molina’s motion for reconsideration of an earlier IJ decision denying his motion to rescind his in absentia removal order and to reopen his removal proceedings. See In re Francisco Javier Orellana-Molina, No. A 200 001 007 (B.I.A. Apr. 27, 2017), aff’g No. A 200 001 007 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Oct. 21, 2016). Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ decision denying reconsideration as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Only the denial of reconsideration is before us, see Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89–90 (2d Cir. 2001), which we review for abuse of discretion, see Jin 2 Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). In so doing, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. A motion to reconsider must “specify the errors of law or fact” in the prior decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(2); see also Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d at 90. We will find an abuse of discretion “only in those limited circumstances where the BIA’s decision (1) provides no rational explanation, (2) inexplicably departs from established policies, (3) is devoid of any reasoning, or (4) contains only summary or conclusory statements.” Maghradze v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 150, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals