17-2784 Silva-Silva v. Barr BIA Straus, IJ A200 031 712 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 6th day of November, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 REENA RAGGI, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ERICO SILVA-SILVA, AKA ANDERSON 14 ERICO DA SILVA, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 17-2784 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Jeffrey A. Devore, Esq., Palm 25 Beach Gardens, FL. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Erica B. Miles, 29 Senior Litigation Counsel; Enitan 30 O. Otunla, Trial Attorney, Office 31 of Immigration Litigation, United 32 States Department of Justice, 33 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Erico Silva-Silva, a native and citizen of 6 Brazil, seeks review of an August 10, 2017, decision of the 7 BIA affirming a March 20, 2017, decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying Silva-Silva’s motion to reopen his 9 removal proceedings and rescind his removal order. In re 10 Erico Silva-Silva, No. A 200 031 712 (B.I.A. Aug. 10, 2017), 11 aff’g No. A 200 031 712 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Mar. 20, 2017). 12 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 13 and procedural history in this case. 14 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 15 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 16 Homeland Security, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We 17 review the denial of a motion to reopen and rescind an in 18 absentia removal order for abuse of discretion. See Alrefae 19 v. Chertoff, 471 F.3d 353, 357 (2d Cir. 2006). 20 There are two grounds to rescind an in absentia removal 21 order: (1) lack of notice of the hearing; and (2) exceptional 2 1 circumstances for failure to appear if rescission is 2 requested within 180 days. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C); 3 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). Only the first provision is ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals