18-2430 Medina-Elliot v. Barr BIA Straus, IJ A078 998 680 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 17th day of September, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MARCELINA TOLA MEDINA-ELLIOT, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-2430 17 NAC 18 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Joshua E. Bardavid, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Brianne Whelan 28 Cohen, Senior Litigation Counsel; 29 Laura M.L. Maroldy, Trial 30 Attorney, Office of Immigration 1 Litigation, United States 2 Department of Justice, Washington, 3 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 DENIED. 9 Petitioner Marcelina Tola Medina-Elliot, a native and 10 citizen of Peru, seeks review of an August 14, 2018, 11 decision of the BIA affirming a February 14, 2018, decision 12 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her motion to 13 reopen. In re Marcelina Tola Medina-Elliot, No. A078 998 14 680 (B.I.A. Aug. 14, 2018), aff’g No. A078 998 680 (Immig. 15 Ct. Hartford Feb. 14, 2018). We assume the parties’ 16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 17 history. 18 We review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the 19 sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 20 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the 21 denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and 22 the country conditions determination for substantial 23 evidence. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168–69 2 1 (2d Cir. 2008). 2 The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying 3 Medina-Elliot’s motion to reopen, which was based on her 4 fear of violence against women in Peru. It is undisputed 5 that her 2018 motion to reopen was untimely because it was 6 filed more than eleven years after she was ordered removed 7 in 2006. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (providing 90- 8 day ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals