Court Opinion

ID: 9364838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 15:00:13.94858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:40.711606
License: Public Domain

21-6370
     Ying Lin v. Garland
                                                                              BIA
                                                                      Thompson, IJ
                                                                      A077 281 342
                            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
 4   New York, on the 20th day of January, two thousand twenty-
 5   three.
 6
 7   PRESENT:
 8            DENNIS JACOBS,
 9            ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
10            WILLIAM J. NARDINI,
11                 Circuit Judges.
12   _____________________________________
13
14   YING LIN,
15                     Petitioner,
16
17                     v.                                   21-6370
18                                                          NAC
19   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21            Respondent.
22   _____________________________________
23
24   FOR PETITIONER:                    Edward J. Cuccia, Esq., New York,
25                                      NY.
26
27   FOR RESPONDENT:                    Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy
28                                      Assistant Attorney General; Keith
 1                                        I. McManus, Assistant Director;
 2                                        Edward C. Durant, Attorney, Office
 3                                        of Immigration Litigation, United
 4                                        States Department of Justice,
 5                                        Washington, DC.

 6        UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

 7   Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

 8   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

 9   is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

10        Petitioner Ying Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s

11   Republic of China, seeks review of a May 27, 2021, decision

12   of   the   BIA    affirming      a    July    16,   2018,    decision   of   an

13   Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her second untimely motion

14   to reopen her removal proceedings to apply to adjust status.

15   In re Ying Lin, No. A077 281 342 (B.I.A. May 27, 2021), aff’g

16   No. A077 281 342 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 16, 2018).                       We

17   assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

18   procedural history.

19        Lin was ordered removed in absentia in 2001 after she

20   failed to appear for a hearing.               In 2018, she filed a second

21   motion     to    reopen   to    pursue       adjustment     of   status.     We

22   generally review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for

23   abuse of discretion.           Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d

24   Cir. 2006).       However, Lin does not dispute that her motion
                                       2
 1   was time and number barred, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A),

 2   (C)(i),   or   allege   any   exception   to   those   limitations.

 3   Accordingly, the only basis for reopening was the BIA’s

 4   authority to reopen sua sponte under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

 5   See Li Chen v. Garland, 43 F.4th 244, 247 (2d Cir. 2022).

 6   “It is well settled . . . that we do not have jurisdiction to

 7   review the BIA’s entirely discretionary refusal to reopen a

 8   case sua sponte.”   Id. at 251–52 (quotation marks omitted).

 9       We decline Lin’s request for remand to the BIA based on

10   Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021) because our

11   review is limited to issues raised before the agency.          See

12   Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 122–23 (2d

13   Cir. 2007).

14       For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

15   DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.       All pending motions and

16   applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

17                                  FOR THE COURT:
18                                  Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
19                                  Clerk of Court

                                      3