Court Opinion

ID: 9387270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-17 15:00:35.332624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:12.654349
License: Public Domain

21-6462
     Barrios Roblero v. Garland
                                                                               BIA
                                                                       A205 152 943
                              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 17th day of April, two thousand twenty-
 5   three.
 6
 7   PRESENT:
 8            STEVEN J. MENASHI,
 9            MYRNA PÉREZ,
10            ALISON J. NATHAN,
11                 Circuit Judges.
12   _____________________________________
13
14   JESUS MANUEL BARRIOS ROBLERO,
15            Petitioner,
16
17                      v.                                   21-6462
18                                                           NAC
19   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21            Respondent.
22   _____________________________________
23
24   FOR PETITIONER:                     Samuel Iroegbu, Albany, NY.
25
26   FOR RESPONDENT:                     Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy
27                                       Assistant Attorney General;
28                                       Jessica E. Burns, Senior
29                                       Litigation Counsel; Nelle M.
 1                               Seymour, Trial Attorney, Office of
 2                               Immigration Litigation, United
 3                               States Department of Justice,
 4                               Washington, DC.

 5       UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

8    is DENIED.

9        Petitioner Jesus Manuel Barrios Roblero, a native and

10   citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a July 21, 2021 decision

11   of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider.     In re Barrios

12   Roblero, No. A205 152 943 (B.I.A. July 21, 2021).

13       We review the BIA’s denial of the motion to reconsider

14   for abuse of discretion.   Jing Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d

15   109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006).    “The BIA abuses its discretion if

16   it acts arbitrarily or capriciously, that is, when it provides

17   no rational explanation, departs from established policies

18   without explanation, or justifies its decision with only

19   conclusory statements.”    Zhao Quan Chen v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d

20   153, 154 (2d Cir. 2007).

21       The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Barrios

22   Roblero’s motion to reconsider as untimely.       A motion to

23   reconsider “must be filed within 30 days of the date of entry

                                    2
 1   of a final administrative order of removal.”                    8 U.S.C.

 2   § 1229a(c)(6)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2).             Barrios Roblero’s

 3   April 2021 motion for reconsideration was untimely filed

 4   almost three years after the BIA’s May 2018 decision affirming

 5   his removal order.         We decline to address his arguments for

 6   equitable tolling because he did not raise them before the

 7   BIA.    Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 122

 8   (2d Cir. 2006) (explaining that our review is generally

 9   limited to issues raised before the BIA and “addressed in a

10   reasoned BIA decision”).

11          Additionally, we find no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s

12   alternative grounds for denying the motion.                 A motion to

13   reconsider     must   do    more     than     simply   repeat   arguments

14   previously raised, as the BIA concluded Barrios Roblero did

15   here.    See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C) (providing that motion

16   to reconsider “shall specify the errors of law or fact in the

17   previous     order    and    shall       be   supported   by    pertinent

18   authority”); Jin Ming Liu, 439 F.3d at 111 (“The BIA does not

19   abuse its discretion by denying a motion to reconsider where

20   the motion repeats arguments that the BIA has previously

21   rejected.”).

                                          3
1       For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

2   DENIED.   All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

3   stays VACATED.

4                               FOR THE COURT:
5                               Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
6                               Clerk of Court

                                  4