Yalcin v. Sessions

16-925 Yalcin v. Sessions BIA A074 856 144 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 8th day of February , two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ALI YALCIN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-925 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Elyssa N. Williams, Formica 24 Williams, P.C., New Haven, CT. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 27 Assistant Attorney General; 28 Jennifer P. Levings, Senior 29 Litigation Counsel; Monica Antoun, 30 Trial Attorney, Office of 31 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 is 4 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Ali Yalcin, a native and citizen of Turkey, 6 seeks review of a February 29, 2015, decision of the BIA denying 7 his motion to reopen. In re Ali Yalcin, No. A074 856 144 (B.I.A. 8 Feb. 29, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 9 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 10 When an alien, such as Yalcin, petitions for review of the 11 denial of a motion to reopen, we review only the denial of the 12 motion, not the agency’s underlying decisions. Paul v. 13 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 153 (2d Cir. 2006). The BIA “may deny 14 a motion to reopen based upon the failure to establish a prima 15 facie case for the relief sought.” Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & 16 N. Dec. 464, 472 (BIA 1992) (citations omitted); see also INS 17 v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988). We review the BIA’s denial 18 of a motion to reopen for “abuse of discretion, mindful that 19 motions to reopen ‘are disfavored.’” Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 20 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 21 323 (1992)). “An abuse of discretion may be found in those 22 circumstances where the Board’s decision provides no rational 2 ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals