18-2620 Perera v. Wilkinson BIA A099 758 977 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 1st day of February, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 AMALYA L. KEARSE, 8 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 KASTURI ARACHCHIGE JOSEPH GAMI 14 PERERA, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-2620 18 19 MONTY WILKINSON, ACTING UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 1 22 _____________________________________ 23 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson is automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen as Respondent. 1 FOR PETITIONER: VISUVANATHAN RUDRAKUMARAN, ESQ., New 2 York, NY. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: R. TRENT MCCOTTER, Deputy Associate 5 Attorney General (Joseph H. Hunt, 6 Assistant Attorney General, Margot 7 L. Carter, Senior Litigation 8 Counsel, Aaron D. Nelson, Trial 9 Attorney, on the brief), United 10 States Department of Justice, 11 Washington, DC. 12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 13 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 14 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 15 is DENIED. 16 Petitioner Kasturi Arachchige Joseph Gami Perera, a 17 native and citizen of Sri Lanka, seeks review of a 2018 18 decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal 19 proceedings. In re Perera, No. A 099 758 977 (B.I.A. Aug. 2, 20 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 21 facts and procedural history, to which we refer only as 22 necessary to explain our decision to deny the petition for 23 review. 24 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 25 abuse of discretion and its country conditions determination 26 for substantial evidence. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 2 1 F.3d 138, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). Generally, an alien seeking 2 to reopen may file one motion to reopen no later than 90 days 3 after the final administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. 4 § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Perera’s 5 2018 motion to reopen was untimely because it was filed more 6 than six years after his 2011 final removal order. The 90- 7 day time limitation ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals