18-594

Recinos v. Garland

McCarthy, IJ

A040 427 185

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 

New York, on the 29th 4 day of August, two thousand twenty5 two.

6

7 PRESENT:

8 ROBERT D. SACK,

9 DENNY CHIN,

10 MICHAEL H. PARK,

11 Circuit Judges.

12 _____________________________________

13

14 FERNANDO RECINOS,

15 Petitioner,

16

17 v. 18-594

18 NAC

19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 

20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

21 Respondent.

22 _____________________________________

23

24 FOR PETITIONER: Stephen W. Manning, Immigrant Law 

25 Group PC, Portland, OR.

26

27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Acting Assistant

28 Attorney General; Leslie McKay, 

29 Senior Litigation Counsel; Margot 

30 L. Carter, Trial Attorney, Office 
2

1 of Immigration Litigation, United 

2 States Department of Justice, 

3 Washington, DC.

4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

5 decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”), it is hereby ORDERED, 

6 ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 

7 DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

8 Petitioner Fernando Recinos, a native and citizen of

9 Honduras, seeks review of an IJ’s August 2017 decision 

10 concurring with the Department of Homeland Security’s finding 

11 that Recinos did not establish a reasonable fear of 

12 persecution or torture. In re Fernando Recinos, No. A 040 

13 427 185 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Aug. 14, 2017). We assume the 

14 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 

15 history.

16 Although neither Recinos nor the Government challenges 

17 our jurisdiction, “federal courts have an independent 

18 obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of 

19 their jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise and decide 

20 jurisdictional questions that the parties either overlook or 

21 elect not to press.” Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. 

22 Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011). Our jurisdiction is 

23 limited to review of petitions filed within 30 days of “final 
3

1 order[s] of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (b)(1). 

2 We lack jurisdiction here. Recinos’s September 2017 

3 petition is not timely from his July 2001 removal order or 

4 the June 2017 reinstatement of that order. See 8 U.S.C. 

5 § 1252(b)(1); Luna v. Holder, 637 F.3d 85, 92 (2d Cir. 2011) 

6 (“Th[e] 30–day filing requirement is jurisdictional and is 

7 not subject to equitable tolling.” (quotation marks omitted)

8 (quoting Ruiz-Martinez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 102, 105-06 (2d 

9 Cir. 2008))). An IJ’s reasonable-fear determination, such 

10 as the order challenged here, is not a final order of removal 

11 because it does “not determine whether the alien is deportable 

12 or order deportation,” or “affect the validity of any 

13 determination regarding an alien’s deportability or 

14 deportation.” Bhaktibhai-Patel v. Garland, 32 F.4th 180, 190

15 (2d Cir. 2022) (cleaned up).

16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

17 DISMISSED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED 

18 and stays VACATED.

19 FOR THE COURT: 

20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

21 Clerk of Court

22