18-1439 Velasquez Ramirez v. Barr BIA A095 968 898 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 2nd day of December, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 REENA RAGGI, 10 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 PEDRO VELASQUEZ RAMIREZ, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-1439 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Jose Perez, Esq., Syracuse, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Leslie McKay, Senior 28 Litigation Counsel; Terri J. 29 Scadron, Assistant Director, 1 Office of Immigration Litigation, 2 United States Department of 3 Justice, Washington, DC. 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 Pedro Velasquez Ramirez, a native and citizen 9 of Guatemala, seeks review of an April 10, 2018, decision of 10 the BIA denying his motion for reconsideration. In re 11 Velasquez Ramirez, No. A 095 968 898 (B.I.A. Apr. 10, 2018). 12 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 13 and procedural history in this case. 14 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for 15 abuse of discretion. Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 16 111 (2d Cir. 2006). “An abuse of discretion may be found 17 where the BIA’s decision provides no rational explanation, 18 inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of 19 any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory 20 statements; that is to say, where the Board has acted in an 21 arbitrary or capricious manner.” Id. (internal quotation 22 marks omitted). 23 Velasquez Ramirez’s argument that the BIA erred in 2 1 deciding his appeal without properly serving a briefing 2 notice and considering the arguments he later raised in his 3 late-filed brief is without merit. The agency reasonably 4 concluded that the record showed the briefing notice was 5 properly mailed to counsel’s address of record in May 2017. 6 Where, as here, an alien had notice of the proceedings, the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals