Ying Lin v. Garland

21-6370 Ying Lin v. Garland BIA Thompson, IJ A077 281 342 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 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 20th day of January, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 10 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 YING LIN, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 21-6370 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Edward J. Cuccia, Esq., New York, 25 NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy 28 Assistant Attorney General; Keith 1 I. McManus, Assistant Director; 2 Edward C. Durant, Attorney, Office 3 of Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, DC. 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 10 Petitioner Ying Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s 11 Republic of China, seeks review of a May 27, 2021, decision 12 of the BIA affirming a July 16, 2018, decision of an 13 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her second untimely motion 14 to reopen her removal proceedings to apply to adjust status. 15 In re Ying Lin, No. A077 281 342 (B.I.A. May 27, 2021), aff’g 16 No. A077 281 342 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 16, 2018). We 17 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 18 procedural history. 19 Lin was ordered removed in absentia in 2001 after she 20 failed to appear for a hearing. In 2018, she filed a second 21 motion to reopen to pursue adjustment of status. We 22 generally review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 23 abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d 24 Cir. 2006). However, Lin does not dispute that her motion 2 1 was time and number barred, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), 2 (C)(i), or allege any exception to those limitations. 3 Accordingly, the only basis for reopening was the BIA’s 4 authority to reopen sua sponte under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). 5 See Li Chen v. Garland, 43 …

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