21-6542 Castillo Maradiaga v. Garland BIA A095 487 963 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 27th day of October, two thousand twenty-three. PRESENT: JOSEPH F. BIANCO, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, MYRNA PÉREZ, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ JAVIER CASTILLO MARADIAGA, Petitioner, v. 21-6542 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Rebecca R. Press, Esq., UnLocal, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Dawen S. Conrad, Senior Litigation Counsel; Rachel P. Berman-Vaporis, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Javier Arnoldo Castillo Maradiaga, a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a September 29, 2021 decision of the BIA denying his January 28, 2021 motion to reopen. In re Javier Arnoldo Castillo-Maradiaga, No. A 095 487 963 (B.I.A. Sept. 29, 2021). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Our review is limited to the BIA’s September 29, 2021 decision denying Castillo Maradiaga’s January 28, 2021 motion to reopen. See Nwogu v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 80, 84 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Singh v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 149, 153 (2d Cir. 2008). “An abuse of discretion may be found . . . where the Board’s decision 2 provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where the Board has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). We review the BIA’s factual findings regarding changed country conditions under the substantial evidence standard, “which requires that they be supported by ‘reasonable, substantial and probative evidence in the record when considered as a whole.’” Kone v. Holder, 596 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Iouri v. Ashcroft, 487 F.3d 76, 81 (2d Cir. 2007)). We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. See Esposito v. INS, …
Original document ES
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals