21-6164 Perez Miguel v. Garland BIA A097 535 038 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 for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 7th day of July, two thousand twenty- 4 two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 8 BETH ROBINSON, 9 MYRNA PÉREZ, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MARIA ANGELA PEREZ MIGUEL, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 21-6164 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 1 2 FOR PETITIONER: Bruno J. Bembi, Hempstead, NY. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney 5 General; Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation 6 Counsel; Rachel Browning, Trial Attorney, 7 Office of Immigration Litigation, United 8 States Department of Justice, Washington, 9 DC. 10 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 12 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 13 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 14 Petitioner Maria Angela Perez Miguel, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 15 petitions for review of the BIA’s February 26, 2021 denial of her motion to 16 reconsider its prior decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of 17 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 18 (“CAT”) and rejecting her claim to have received ineffective assistance of counsel 19 before the IJ. In re Maria Angela Perez Miguel, No. A097 535 038 (B.I.A. Feb. 26, 20 2021). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 21 procedural history. 22 We review the BIA’s denial of reconsideration for abuse of discretion. See 23 Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). A motion to reconsider 2 1 “shall specify the errors of law or fact in the previous order.” 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1229a(c)(6)(C); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 265 3 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2001) (“A motion to reconsider asserts that at the time of the 4 Board’s previous decision an error was made.” (quotation marks omitted)). “A 5 motion to reconsider based on a legal argument that could have been raised earlier 6 in the proceedings will be denied.” In re O-S-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 56, 58 (B.I.A. 7 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals