Hernandez-Bautista v. Barr

14-4247 Hernandez-Bautista v. Barr BIA A073 467 248 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 13th day of August, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 TEODORA HERNANDEZ-BAUTISTA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 14-4247 17 NAC 18 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Mark J. Devine, Charleston, SC. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Leslie McKay, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Siu P. 29 Wong, Trial Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United 31 States Department of Justice, 32 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 4 is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. 5 Petitioner Teodora Hernandez-Bautista, a native and 6 citizen of Mexico, seeks review of an October 17, 2014, 7 decision of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. In re 8 Teodora Hernandez-Bautista, No. A 073 467 248 (B.I.A. Oct. 17, 9 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 10 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 11 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 12 abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d 13 Cir. 2006). A motion to reopen must be filed no later than 14 90 days after the final administrative decision is rendered. 15 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). 16 Hernandez-Bautista’s motion—filed more than ten years after 17 her appeal was dismissed and she was granted voluntary 18 departure—was thus untimely, and she identified no exceptions 19 to the time limit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) 20 (exception for asylum); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) (listing 21 exceptions). Accordingly, the only basis for reopening was 2 1 the BIA’s authority to reopen sua sponte. 2 The BIA has authority to reopen sua sponte despite the 3 time and number limitations, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), but we 4 lack jurisdiction to review the “entirely discretionary” 5 decision declining to do so, ...

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