19-3811 Wong v. Garland BIA A029 835 206 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 1st day of October, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GERARD E. LYNCH, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MING WONG, AKA HEE SUK CHU YANG, 14 AKA MING DI WANG, AKA KEE YOAN 15 YANG, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 19-3811 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Stuart Altman, New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Paul Forino, 29 Senior Litigation Counsel; Robert 1 D. Tennyson, Jr., Trial Attorney, 2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Ming Wong, a native and citizen of China, 10 seeks review of a November 8, 2019, decision of the BIA 11 denying his motion to reopen. In re Ming Wong, No. A 029 835 12 206 (B.I.A. Nov. 8, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity 13 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 15 abuse of discretion. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 16 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). In his third motion to reopen 17 with the BIA, Wong argued that the agency did not have 18 jurisdiction to commence removal proceedings and should 19 permit him to apply for cancellation of removal because his 20 notice to appear (“NTA”), which did not contain a hearing 21 date or time, was deficient under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. 22 Ct. 2105 (2018), and thus did not vest jurisdiction with the 23 immigration court or stop his accrual of the physical presence 2 1 required for cancellation. 2 It is undisputed that Wong’s 2018 motion to reopen was 3 untimely and number barred because it was his third motion 4 and was filed more than 23 years after …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals