Bah v. Garland

19-4102 Bah v. Garland BIA A096 241 218 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 20th day of January, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 Chief Judge, 10 MICHAEL H. PARK, 11 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 12 Circuit Judges. 13 _____________________________________ 14 15 ABDOULAYE BAH, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 19-4102 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, Esq., 26 New York, NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 29 Attorney General; Claire L. 30 Workman, Senior Litigation 1 Counsel; Scott M. Marconda, Trial 2 Attorney, Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 DC. 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. 11 Petitioner Abdoulaye Bah, a native and citizen of Guinea, 12 seeks review of a November 18, 2019 decision of the BIA 13 denying his motion to reopen. See In re Abdoulaye Bah, No. 14 A096 241 218 (B.I.A. Nov. 18, 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 by denying Bah’s 2 motion to reopen. It is undisputed that Bah’s 2019 motion 3 to reopen was time barred because he filed it 14 years after 4 the agency issued his final order of removal in 2005. See 5 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (providing 90-day deadline for …

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