19-1510 (L) Rivera-Lopez v. Garland BIA A200 814 696 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 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 22nd day of April, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 LUCILA DEL CARMEN RIVERA-LOPEZ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-1510 (L), 17 19-4347 (Con) 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Daniel G. Anna, Esq., Anna & 25 Anna, P.C., Media, PA. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 28 General; Cindy S. Ferrier, 1 Assistant Director; Joseph A. 2 O’Connell, Attorney, Office of 3 Immigration Litigation, Civil 4 Division, United States Department 5 of Justice, Washington, DC. 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions are DENIED. 9 Petitioner Lucila Del Carmen Rivera-Lopez, a native and 10 citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of April 23, 2019, and 11 November 29, 2019, BIA decisions denying her motions to 12 reopen. In re Lucila Del Carmen Rivera-Lopez, No. A200 814 13 696 (B.I.A. Apr. 23, 2019 & Nov. 29, 2019). We assume the 14 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 15 history. 16 We review the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen for 17 abuse of discretion but review any finding regarding changed 18 country conditions for substantial evidence. See Jian Hui 19 Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). “An 20 abuse of discretion may be found in those circumstances where 21 the [BIA’s] decision provides no rational explanation, 22 inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of 23 any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory 24 statements; that is to say, where the [BIA] has acted in an 2 1 arbitrary or capricious manner.” Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t 2 of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir. 2001) (internal citations 3 omitted). 4 An alien seeking to reopen proceedings to apply for new 5 relief may file one motion to reopen no later than 90 days 6 after the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals