Sarkar v. Garland

20-1197 Sarkar v. Garland BIA A073 534 922 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 13th day of October, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 RAJA SARKAR, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-1197 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Dustin P. Smith, James Henseler, 25 Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, New 26 York, NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 29 Assistant Attorney General; John 30 S. Hogan, Assistant Director; 31 Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips, Trial 32 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 Raja Sarkar, a native and citizen of 10 Bangladesh, seeks review of a March 13, 2020 decision of the 11 BIA denying his 2019 motion to reopen. In re Raja Sarkar, 12 No. A073 534 922 (B.I.A. Mar. 13, 2020). We assume the 13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 14 history. 15 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 16 abuse of discretion. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 17 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). It is undisputed that Sarkar’s 18 2019 motion to reopen was untimely and number barred because 19 it was his sixth motion to reopen filed more than 16 years 20 after removal order became final in 1997. See 8 U.S.C. 21 § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i) (providing that one motion to reopen 22 may be filed within 90 days of a final order); 8 C.F.R. 23 § 1003.2(c)(2) (same). 2 1 The BIA did not err in declining to excuse the time or 2 number limits based on Sarkar’s claim that his former attorney 3 rendered ineffective assistance by failing to petition for 4 review of the agency’s underlying decision, which denied 5 asylum and related relief on credibility grounds because 6 Sarkar failed to show …

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