18

- 594 Recinos v. Garland McCarthy

, IJ A 040 427 185 

### 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 D ATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION**  **“ SUMMARY ORDER**  **” ). A**  **PARTY CITING 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** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall**  2 **Uni ted States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square,**  **in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 29**  **th da**  **y of August**  **, two thousand twenty** 

**** 4 **two.** 5 6 **PRESENT:** 7 **ROBERT D. SACK ,**  8 **DENNY CHIN ,**  9 **MICHAEL H. PARK ,**  10 **Circuit Judges.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **FERNANDO RECINOS ,**  14 **Petitioner ,**  15 16

**v. 18** 

**- 594**  17 **NAC** 18 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 19 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 **Respondent**

**.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Stephen W. Manning , Immigrant Law 24 Group PC, Portland , OR

. 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Joseph H. Hunt , Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General ; Leslie McKay , 28 Senior Litigation Counsel ; Margot 29
L. Carter , Trial Attorney, Office 302 of Immigration Litigation, United 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, D C. 3

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 4

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

ADJUDGED , AND DECREED that the petitio n for review is 6

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction

. 7

Petitioner Fernando Recinos , a native and citizen of 8

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

concurring with the Department of Homeland Security’s finding 10

that Recinos did not establish a reasonable fear of 11

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

427 185 (Immig r . Ct. N.Y.C

. Aug. 14, 2017 ). We assume the 13

parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 14

history. 15

Although neither Recinos nor the Government challenges 16

our jurisdiction, “federal courts have an independent 17

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

their jurisdiction, and t herefore they must raise and decide 19

jurisdictional questions that the parties either overlook or 20

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

Shinseki , 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011)

. Our jurisdiction is 22

limited to review of petition s filed within 30 da ys of “final 233 order [s] of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (b)(1). 1

We lack jurisdiction here. Recinos’s September 2017 2

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

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

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

(“Th[e] 30

– day filing requirement is jurisdictional and is 6

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

(quoting Ruiz

- Martinez v. Mukasey , 516 F.3d 102, 105

- 06 (2d 8

Cir. 2008)) ). A n IJ’s reasonable

- fear determination, such 9

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

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

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

determination regarding an alien’s deportability or 13

deportation.” Bhaktibhai

- Patel v. Garland , 32 F.4th 180, 19 0 14

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

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 16

DISMISSED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED 17

and stays VACATED. 18

FOR THE COURT: 19 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 20 Clerk of Court 21
22