14-924 

Chia v. Lynch 

BIA 

Hom, IJ 

A073 033 461

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. 

 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 

14th day of December, two thousand fifteen. 

PRESENT: 

 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 

 Chief Judge, 

PETER W. HALL,

 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 

 Circuit Judges. 

_____________________________________ 

SOUSAM CHIA, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 14-924 

 NAC 

LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent. 

_____________________________________ 

 

FOR PETITIONER: Edward J. Cuccia, Ferro & Cuccia, New 

York, N.Y. 

FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General; Ernesto H. Molina, 

Jr., Assistant Director; Joanna L. 
2 

Watson, Trial Attorney, Office of

Immigration Litigation, Civil 

Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington D.C. 

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. 

 Sousam Chia, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic 

of China, seeks review of a March 5, 2014, decision of the BIA, 

affirming the September 16, 2011, decision of an Immigration 

Judge (“IJ”), denying his motion to reopen. In re Sousam Chia, 

No. A073 033 461 (B.I.A. Mar. 5, 2014), aff’g No. A073 033 461 

(Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 16, 2011). We assume the parties’ 

familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 

in this case. 

Under the circumstances of this case, we have considered 

both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 

completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 

524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review 

are well established. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d 

Cir. 2006). 
3 

It is undisputed that Chia’s motion to reopen, filed almost 

13 years after his final deportation order, was untimely. See 

8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (providing 90-day filing 

deadline); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (same). Chia argues that 

the untimeliness of his motion to reopen should be excused, 

because his deportation order was barred by res judicata. But 

a motion to reopen based on purported res judicata does not fall 

within any of the statutory or regulatory exceptions to the 

timeliness requirements for motions to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3); see also Matter of 

Yauri, 15 I. & N. Dec. 103, 105 (BIA 2009) (emphasizing “that 

untimely motions to reopen to pursue an application for 

adjustment of status . . . do not fall within any of the statutory 

or regulatory exceptions to the time limits for motions to 

reopen”). Accordingly, the BIA and IJ did not err by concluding 

that Chia’s motion to reopen was barred as untimely. 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

DENIED. 

 FOR THE COURT: 

 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk