09 -3543 -ag

Kosasih v. Holder BIA A097 849 104 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY O RDER 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 3 day of March, two thousand ten. rd 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges . 11

_____________________________________ 12 13 THERESIA KOSASIH, 14 Petitioner , 15 16 v. 09-3543-ag 17 NAC 18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent . 21

_____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Matthew J. Archambeault, 24 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant 28 Director; Kerry A. Monaco, Trial 29 Attorney, Office of Immigration 30 Litigation, Civil Division, United 31 States Department of Justice, 32 Washington, D.C.2 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is 3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for 4 review is DENIED. 5 Theresia Kosasih, a native and citizen of Indonesia, 6 seeks review of a July 21, 2009, order of the BIA denying 7 her motion to reissue. In re Theresia Kosasih , No. A097 849 8 104 (B.I.A. July 21, 2009). We assume the parties’ 9 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 1 0 of this case. 1 1 We review the agency’s denial of a motion to reissue 1 2 for abuse of discretion. See Ping Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 1 3 502 F.3d 73, 75 (2d Cir. 2007). As the Government argues, 1 4 this case is controlled by Ping Chen . In that case, the 1 5 applicant asked the BIA to reissue its decision because she 1 6 allegedly did not receive it or even learn of it for several 1 7 months after its issuance. Id. at 74. The BIA denied the 1 8 motion on the ground that the decision was correctly mailed 1 9 to the applicant’s address of record. Id. at 75. We noted, 2 0 inter alia, that the record included an order and a cover 2 1 letter addressed to the petitioner’s correct address, and 2 2 that although the petitioner and a relative filed affidavits3 1 stating that they had not received the order, the petitioner 2 did not point to any irregularity in the BIA’s records 3 suggesting that service was not actually accomplished. Id. 4 at 77. Upholding the BIA’s decision, we held that, “once 5 the BIA has performed its duty of serving the order, the 6 time for appeal and motions to reopen begins to run, even if 7 the order miscarries in the mail or the alien does not 8 receive it for some other reason that is not the BIA’s 9 fault.” Id. at 76-77. 1 0 Here, the record similarly includes a cover letter 1 1 addressed to the petitioner and her attorney at their 1 2 addresses of record on the day the decision was issued. 1 3 Although Kosasih, her attorney, and others filed affidavits 1 4 stating they did not receive the decision, Kosasih admits 1 5 that “there are no irregularities as to the addresses [on 1 6 the BIA cover sheets] of either the Petitioner or her 1 7 counsel.” On these facts, the BIA’s denial of Kosasih’s 1 8 motion to reissue on the ground that the BIA had satisfied 1 9 its obligation to notify the petitioner of the disposition 2 0 of her case was not an abuse of discretion. See id. at 77. 2 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 2 2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of4 1 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 2 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 3 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 4 5 6 FOR THE COURT: 7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 8 9 10 11