19-2216 Wade v. Garland BIA A098 220 106 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 5th day of August, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 KHADY WADE, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-2216 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Samuel Iroegbu, Esq., Albany, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 26 Attorney General; Jessica A. 27 Dawgert, Senior Litigation 28 Counsel; Richard Kelley, Trial 29 Attorney, Office of Immigration 30 Litigation, United States 31 Department of Justice, Washington, 32 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 in part and GRANTED in part. 5 Petitioner Khady Wade, a native and citizen of Senegal, 6 seeks review of a June 27, 2019, decision of the BIA, denying 7 her motion to reopen. In re Khady Wade, No. A098 220 106 8 (B.I.A. June 27, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity 9 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 10 The applicable standards of review are well established. 11 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 12 2008). In her motion to reopen, Wade asserted that she should 13 be permitted to reapply for asylum and related relief based 14 on threatening letters from her husband in Senegal, and that 15 her notice to appear was defective under Pereira v. Sessions, 16 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), and thus was insufficient to vest 17 jurisdiction with the immigration judge (“IJ”) and stop the 18 accrual of physical presence required for cancellation of 19 removal. 20 It is undisputed that Wade’s 2018 motion was untimely 21 filed more than seven years after her removal order became 2 1 final in 2011. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (providing 2 90-day deadline); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (same). Although 3 the time limit does not apply if reopening is sought to apply 4 for asylum and the motion “is based …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals