Joshue v. Barr

18-58 Joshue v. Barr BIA Straus, IJ A023 310 562 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 18th day of September, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JENNIFA JOSHUE, AKA JENNIFER 14 JOSHUA, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-58 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Paul B. Grotas, Esq., New York, 25 NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 28 General; Stephen J. Flynn, 29 Assistant Director; James A. 30 Hurley, Trial Attorney, Office of 31 Immigration Litigation, United 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, DC. 3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 4 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 5 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 6 is DENIED. 7 Petitioner Jennifa Joshue, a native and citizen of St. 8 Lucia, seeks review of a January 4, 2018, decision of the BIA 9 denying her second motion to reopen. In re Jennifa Joshue, 10 No. A 023 310 562 (B.I.A. Jan. 4, 2018). We assume the 11 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 12 history in this case. 13 Because Joshue has been convicted of an aggravated 14 felony, our review is limited to colorable constitutional 15 claims and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C), 16 (D); Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 39–41 (2d Cir. 17 2008). Although Joshue’s arguments implicate constitutional 18 issues and questions of law, none of her challenges to the 19 time and number limitation on her motion have merit. And we 20 lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen 21 sua sponte. 2 1 An alien seeking to reopen proceedings may file only one 2 motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the final 3 administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 4 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is no dispute that Joshue’s 5 2017 motion was her second motion to reopen and was untimely 6 filed 15 years after her removal order. None of the statutory 7 and ...

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