Reyes Hercules v. Garland

20-3353 Reyes Hercules v. Garland Reid, IJ A205 487 165 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 24th day of May, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 8 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _________________________________________ 12 13 OSCAR MISAEL REYES HERCULES, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-3353 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _________________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Perham Makabi, Esq., Kew Gardens, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; John S. Hogan, 28 Assistant Director; Lindsay 29 Corliss, 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 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), it is hereby ORDERED, 3 ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 4 DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 5 Petitioner Oscar Misael Reyes Hercules, a native and 6 citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a September 21, 2020, 7 decision of an IJ concurring with the Department of Homeland 8 Security’s finding that Reyes Hercules did not establish a 9 reasonable fear of persecution or torture. In re Oscar 10 Misael Reyes Hercules, No. A205 487 165 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 11 Sept. 21, 2020). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 12 underlying facts and procedural history. 13 Although neither Reyes Hercules nor the Government 14 challenges our jurisdiction, “federal courts have an 15 independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the 16 scope of their jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise 17 and decide jurisdictional questions that the parties either 18 overlook or elect not to press.” Bhaktibhai-Patel v. 19 Garland, No. 19-2565, --- F.4th ---, 2022 WL 1230819, at *4 20 (2d Cir. Apr. 27, 2022). We have jurisdiction to review 21 petitions for review filed within 30 days of a “final order 22 of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (b)(1). 2 1 We lack jurisdiction here. Reyes Hercules’s October 2 2020 petition for review is not timely from the IJ’s 2012 3 removal order or the Department of Homeland Security’s August 4 2020 reinstatement of that order. …

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