18-109 Perla v. Barr BIA Sichel, IJ A094 100 352 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 12th day of February, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ JOSE R. PERLA, Petitioner, v. 18-109 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Holly M. Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jesse Lloyd Busen, 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 Jose R. Perla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a December 21, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a May 11, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Perla’s motion to reopen. In re Jose R. Perla, No. A 094 100 352 (B.I.A. Dec. 21, 2017), aff’g No. A 094 100 352 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 11, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We review a denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency did not abuse its discretion in declining to reopen because Perla did not present new evidence that was previously unavailable. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3) (“A motion to reopen will not be granted unless the Immigration Judge is satisfied that evidence sought to be offered is material and 2 was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.”). Perla attached to his motion to reopen an asylum officer’s 1998 notes and a 2011 BIA decision temporarily suspending his former counsel from practicing before the BIA. Both of these documents predated Perla’s 2016 immigration proceedings. Perla argues that these documents were unavailable to him because he did not have notice that his credibility was in question. However, the record reflects that he was questioned about inconsistencies at his hearing and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals