Ibric v. Barr

18-112 Ibric v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A029 283 819 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 15th day of May, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 KEMAL PUDOVIC IBRIC, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-112 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Peter E. Torres, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Carl H. 27 McIntyre, Assistant Director; 28 Justin R. Markel, Senior 29 Litigation Counsel, 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. 5 Petitioner Kemal Pudovic Ibric, a native of the former 6 Yugoslavia and citizen of Montenegro, seeks review of a 7 December 19, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming the July 26, 8 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his 9 motion to reopen, and denying his motion to remand in the 10 first instance. In re Kemal Pudovic Ibric, No. A029 283 819 11 (B.I.A. Dec. 19, 2017), aff’g No. A029 283 819 (Immig. Ct. 12 N.Y.C. July 26, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity 13 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 The applicable standards of review are well established. 15 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 16 2008); Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 421 F.3d 149, 17 157 (2d Cir. 2005). The agency did not abuse its discretion 18 in denying as untimely Ibric’s motion to reopen for adjustment 19 of status and his motion to remand to apply for suspension of 20 deportation under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central 21 American Relief Act of 1997 (“NACARA”). 2 1 “A motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the 2 date of entry of a final administrative order of removal, 3 deportation, or exclusion, or ...

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