Morales Mejia v. Lynch

13-1252
Morales Mejia v. Lynch
BIA
A029 728 460
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 United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 9th day of February, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 DOLORES OSWALDO MORALES MEJIA,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-1252
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Rahul Chakravartty, Bridgeport, CT.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
26 General, Francis W. Fraser, Senior
27 Litigation Counsel, Dawn S. Conrad,
28 Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration
29 Litigation, United States Department
30 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
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 Dolores Oswaldo Morales Mejia, a native and
6 citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a March 14, 2013,
7 decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re
8 Morales Mejia, No. A029 728 460 (B.I.A. Mar. 14, 2013). We
9 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
10 and procedural history in this case.
11 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
12 abuse of discretion, remaining “mindful that motions to
13 reopen are ‘disfavored.’” Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515,
14 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314,
15 322-23 (1992)); Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.
16 2005) (per curiam).
17 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
18 reopening because Morales failed to submit an application
19 for relief with his motion, as required under the
20 regulations. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
21
22
2
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED.
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
6
3