17-300 Tiemogo v. Barr UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER 1 RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A 2 SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007 IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY 3 FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN 4 CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE 5 EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION 6 “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON 7 ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 8 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at 9 the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 10 on the 19th day of March, two thousand nineteen. 11 12 PRESENT: 13 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 14 Chief Judge, 15 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 16 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 17 Circuit Judges. 18 _________________________________________ 19 20 AMADOU TIEMOGO, 21 22 Petitioner, 23 24 v. No. 17-300 25 26 WILLIAM P. BARR, 27 United States Attorney General, 28 29 Respondent. 30 _________________________________________ 31 32 FOR PETITIONER: S. Michael Musa-Obregon, Esq., White 33 Plains, NY. 34 35 FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory A. Pennington, Jr., Trial 36 Attorney, Office of Immigration 37 Litigation, Chad A. Readler, Acting 1 Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, 2 Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director, Office 3 of Immigration Litigation, U.S. 4 Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 7 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 8 DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED. 9 Petitioner Amadou Tiemogo, a native and citizen of Niger, seeks review of decision 10 of the BIA affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Tiemogo’s motion 11 to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Amadou Tiemogo, No. A099 372 631 (B.I.A. Jan. 5, 12 2017), aff’g No. A099 372 631 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Nov. 18, 2015). We assume the parties’ 13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case, to which we refer 14 only as needed to explain our decision to grant the petition for review. 15 We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and related 16 country conditions findings for substantial evidence. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 17 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). The BIA abuses its discretion if it rests its decision on a “clearly 18 erroneous factual finding.” Dedji v. Mukasey, 525 F.3d 187, 191 (2d Cir. 2008). When 19 addressing a motion to reopen, the Board “has an obligation to consider the record as a 20 whole,” and we may remand in cases where the BIA “failed to address all the factors relevant 21 to petitioner’s claim.” Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 97 (2d ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals