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 14**  **th 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