Socop-Castillo v. Barr

12-3138 Socop-Castillo v. Barr BIA Verrillo, IJ A073 641 589 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 12th day of July, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 EDGAR D. SOCOP-CASTILLO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 12-3138 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Glenn L. Formica, Formica 24 Williams, P.C., New Haven, CT. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 27 Attorney General; M. Jocelyn Lopez 28 Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel; 29 Christopher Buchanan, 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 Edgar D. Socop-Castillo, a native and citizen 10 of Guatemala, seeks review of an August 3, 2012, decision of 11 the BIA (1) affirming a May 7, 2012, decision of an 12 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Socop-Castillo’s motion to 13 rescind his deportation order entered in absentia and reopen 14 his removal proceedings, and (2) denying his motion to 15 remand. In re Edgar D. Socop-Castillo, No. A073 641 589 16 (B.I.A. Aug. 3, 2012), aff’g No. A073 641 589 (Immig. Ct. 17 Hartford May 7, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity 18 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 19 We have reviewed the decision of the IJ as supplemented 20 by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 21 Cir. 2005). Motions to reopen deportation proceedings in 22 which an alien has been ordered deported in absentia are 23 governed by different rules depending on whether the movant 2 1 seeks to rescind the in absentia deportation order or to 2 present new evidence of eligibility for relief. See Song Jin 3 Wu v. INS, 436 F.3d 157, 163 (2d Cir. 2006); In re M-S-, 22 4 I. & N. Dec. 349, 353-55 (BIA 1998). Accordingly, when, as 5 here, an ...

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