20-1501 Palacios-Jimenez v. Garland BIA A205 472 333 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 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 11th day of October, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JON O. NEWMAN, 9 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 10 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 PATRICIA YESENIA PALACIOS- 15 JIMENEZ, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 20-1501 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, 26 NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 29 Attorney General; Cindy S. 30 Ferrier, Assistant Director; 1 Timothy G. Hayes, Senior 2 Litigation Counsel, Office of 3 Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, DC. 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Patricia Yesenia Palacios-Jimenez, a citizen 12 of El Salvador, seeks review of an April 24, 2020, decision 13 of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. In re Patricia 14 Yesenia Palacios-Jimenez, No. A 205 472 333 (B.I.A. Apr. 24, 15 2020). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 16 facts and procedural history. 17 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 18 abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d 19 Cir. 2006). “An abuse of discretion may be found . . . where 20 the Board’s decision provides no rational explanation, 21 inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of 22 any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory 23 statements; that is to say, where the Board has acted in an 24 arbitrary or capricious manner.” Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t 2 1 of Just., 265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir. 2001) (internal citations 2 omitted). 3 We deny the petition for review because the BIA did not 4 abuse its discretion when it denied Palacios-Jimenez’s motion 5 to reopen. Applicable BIA precedent holds that the BIA cannot 6 rule on a motion to reopen if it never adjudicated the merits 7 of the underlying appeal. See Matter of Lopez, 22 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals