Case Name: SOUSAM CHIA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-14
Citations: 624 F. App'x 40
Docket Number: No. 14-924
Parties: SOUSAM CHIA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, PETER W. HALL, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 624
Pages: 40–41

Head Matter:
SOUSAM CHIA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-924.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Dec. 14, 2015.
Edward J. Cuccia, Ferro & Cuccia, New York, N.Y., for Petitioner.
Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director; Joanna L. Watson, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, PETER W. HALL, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
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 ("U"), denying his motion to reopen. In re Sousam Chia, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 5, 2014), affg No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (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).
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, 25 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. -