18-2291 Sevilla-Hernandez v. Garland BIA Straus, IJ A200 941 560 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 9th day of November, two thousand twenty- 5 one. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 GUIDO CALABRESI, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 AXEL FAVIAN SEVILLA-HERNANDEZ, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-2291 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jon E. Jessen, Law Offices Jon E. 24 Jessen LLC, Stamford, CT. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Andrew N. 28 O’Malley, Senior Litigation 29 Counsel; Sunah Lee, Trial 30 Attorney, Office of Immigration 31 Litigation, United States 1 Department of Justice, Washington, 2 DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Axel Favian Sevilla-Hernandez, a native and 9 citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a July 9, 2018, 10 decision of the BIA affirming the October 6, 2017 decision 11 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his motion to 12 rescind his removal order and reopen his removal 13 proceedings. In re Axel Favian Sevilla-Hernandez, No. A 200 14 941 560 (B.I.A. July 9, 2018), aff’g No. A 200 941 560 15 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Oct. 6, 2017). We assume the parties’ 16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 17 history. 18 Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both 19 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 20 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 21 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). Our review is generally 22 limited to the reasons given by the BIA, i.e., “we may 2 1 consider only those issues that formed the basis for that 2 decision.” Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 3 104, 122 (2d Cir. 2007). 4 Because Sevilla-Hernandez timely petitioned for review 5 only from the agency’s decision denying his motion to 6 rescind and reopen, our review is limited to that decision, 7 and we cannot review the underlying in …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals