Bin v. Garland

19-1836 Bin v. Garland BIA A078 257 662 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 29th day of November, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 WEI SUN BIN, A.K.A. BIN SUN WEI, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-1836 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jean Wang, Esq., Wang Law Office, 24 PLLC, Flushing, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 27 Attorney General; Jessica E. 28 Burns, Senior Litigation Counsel; 29 Claire L. Workman, Senior 30 Litigation Counsel, Office of 1 Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, DC. 4 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 GRANTED. 9 Petitioner Wei Sun Bin, a native and citizen of the 10 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 10, 2019, 11 decision of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider and 12 reopen. In re Wei Sun Bin, No. A 078 257 662 (B.I.A. June 13 10, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 14 underlying facts and procedural history. 15 We review the BIA’s denial of motions to reconsider and 16 reopen for abuse of discretion. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 17 546 F.3d 138, 168-69, 173 (2d Cir. 2008). It is undisputed 18 that Bin’s 2018 motion was untimely filed more than 15 years 19 after his 2002 removal order. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B) (30- 20 day deadline for motion to reconsider), (7)(C)(i) (90-day 21 deadline for motion to reopen). The BIA concluded that, even 22 if the untimely filing was excused, Bin failed to establish 23 his prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See 2 1 INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988). 2 For a non-permanent resident, like Bin, to be eligible 3 for cancellation, he must have accrued 10 years of continuous 4 physical presence in the United States. 8 U.S.C. 5 § 1229b(b)(1)(A). In Pereira v. Sessions, the …

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