19-2923 Zheng v. Garland BIA A209 127 618 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 17th day of August, two thousand twenty- 5 one. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 Chief Judge, 10 GUIDO CALABRESI, 11 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 12 Circuit Judges. 13 _____________________________________ 14 15 HAI QIN ZHENG, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 19-2923 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Richard Tarzia, Esq., Belle Mead, 26 NJ. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 29 General; Shelley R. Goad, 1 Assistant Director; Elizabeth R. 2 Chapman, Trial Attorney, Office of 3 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 DENIED. 10 Petitioner Hai Qin Zheng, a native and citizen of the 11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 29, 12 2019, decision of the BIA denying her motion to reopen and 13 terminate her removal proceedings. In re Hai Qin Zheng, No. 14 A 209 127 618 (B.I.A. Aug. 29, 2019). We assume the parties’ 15 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 16 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 17 abuse of discretion. See Zhao Quan Chen v. Gonzales, 492 18 F.3d 153, 154 (2d Cir. 2007). The BIA abuses its discretion 19 if its “decision provides no rational explanation, 20 inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of 21 any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory 22 statements; that is to say, where the Board has acted in an 23 arbitrary or capricious manner.” Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 24 233-34 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 1 The BIA did not abuse its discretion here. Zheng argued 2 that, under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2114 (2018), 3 the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over her removal 4 proceedings because her notice to appear (“NTA”) did not 5 include the date and time of her initial hearing. In Pereira, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals