Omoju v. Garland

20-2134 Omoju v. Garland BIA A206 270 102 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 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 1st day of November, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 10 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 ADENIKE BOLA OMOJU, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-2134 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Raymond Lo, Esq., Jersey City, 25 NJ. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; John S. Hogan, 29 Assistant Director; Kiley Kane, 30 Senior Litigation Counsel, Office 31 of Immigration Litigation, United 32 States Department of Justice, 33 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 Adenike Bola Omoju, a native and citizen of 6 Nigeria, seeks review of a June 11, 2020, decision of the BIA 7 denying her second motion to reconsider and reopen. In re 8 Adenike Bola Omoju, No. A 206 270 102 (B.I.A. June 11, 2020). 9 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 10 and procedural history. 11 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen or 12 reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Jian Hui Shao v. 13 Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008); Jin Ming Liu v. 14 Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). “An abuse of 15 discretion may be found . . . where the Board’s decision 16 provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from 17 established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains 18 only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where 19 the Board has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Ke 20 Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir. 21 2001) (internal citations omitted). An abuse of discretion 2 1 may be found if the BIA “has misunderstood or misapplied the 2 governing law.” Abu Hasirah v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 478 3 F.3d 474, 477 (2d Cir. 2007). The agency did …

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