Court Opinion

ID: 9377624
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-08 16:01:01.637438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:15.699550
License: Public Domain

21-6050
     Alvarez Morales v. Garland
                                                                         Conroy, IJ
                                                                      A075 447 663
                             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 8th day of March, two thousand twenty-
 5   three.
 6
 7   PRESENT:
 8            ROBERT D. SACK,
 9            RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10            WILLIAM J. NARDINI,
11                 Circuit Judges.
12   _____________________________________
13
14   BOLIVAR GEORDANO ALVAREZ
15   MORALES,
16            Petitioner,
17
18                     v.                                   21-6050
19                                                          NAC
20   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
21   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22            Respondent.
23   _____________________________________
24
25
26   FOR PETITIONER:                    James D. Brousseau, Esq.,
27                                      Brousseau & Lee, PLLC, Falls
28                                      Church, VA.
29
 1   FOR RESPONDENT:                   Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant
 2                                     Attorney General; Jeffrey R.
 3                                     Leist, Senior Litigation Counsel;
 4                                     Jennifer A. Bowen, Trial Attorney,
 5                                     Office of Immigration Litigation,
 6                                     United States Department of
 7                                     Justice, Washington, DC.

 8          UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

 9   decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), it is hereby ORDERED,

10   ADJUDGED,     AND   DECREED   that      the   petition   for    review   is

11   DISMISSED.

12          Petitioner Bolivar Geordano Alvarez Morales, a native

13   and citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a December 30, 2020

14   decision of an IJ affirming an asylum officer’s determination

15   that he did not establish a reasonable fear of persecution or

16   torture.     In the Matter of Bolivar Geordano Alvarez Morales,

17   No. A075 447 663 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 30, 2020).                   We

18   assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

19   procedural history.

20          The dispositive issue is whether we have jurisdiction to

21   review the IJ’s reasonable fear determination.                 We conclude

22   that    we   do   not   because   our    jurisdiction    is    limited   to

23   petitions for review filed within 30 days of a final order of

24   removal.     See Bhaktibhai-Patel v. Garland, 32 F.4th 180, 191

25   (2d Cir. 2022).
                                          2
 1        Alvarez Morales was removed from the United States in

 2   1997 and reentered in 1999.                 The Department of Homeland

 3   Security     (“DHS”)      reinstated       his     removal    order     in   2013,

 4   subjecting him to removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), which

 5   provides a summary removal process.                  See Johnson v. Guzman

 6   Chavez,    141     S.   Ct.   2271,    2282      (2021)      (citing    8    C.F.R.

 7   §§ 241.8(a)-(c), 1241.8(a)-(c)).                 After a removal order is

 8   reinstated, if the non-citizen “expresses a fear of returning

 9   to the country designated in that [reinstated] order,”                             an

10   asylum    officer       determines    whether       the   non-citizen        has   a

11   reasonable fear of persecution or torture.                   Bhaktibhai-Patel,

12   32   F.4th    at    185 (citing       8     C.F.R.     § 241.8(e)).            That

13   determination is subject to review by an IJ.                       Id. (citing

14   8 C.F.R. § 208.31(e), (f)).

15        Where, as here, the IJ concurs with the asylum officer’s

16   finding that the non-citizen has not established a reasonable

17   fear of persecution or torture, the IJ returns the case to

18   DHS for removal of the non-citizen.                   Id. (citing 8 C.F.R.

19   § 208.31(g)(1)).         The IJ’s concurrence and return of the case

20   is not itself a final order of removal because it does “not

21   determine     whether      ‘the   alien       is    deportable     or       order[]

                                            3
 1   deportation,’”          id.            at        190        (quoting         8      U.S.C.

 2   § 1101(a)(47)(A)),           or        “‘affect          the   validity’           of     any

 3   determination         regarding             an     alien’s        deportability            or

 4   deportation,” id. (quoting Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683,

 5   1691 (2020)).        Our jurisdiction is limited to petitions for

 6   review filed within 30 days of a “final order of removal.”

 7   8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (b)(1); Bhaktibhai-Patel, 32 F.4th at

 8   188.    Accordingly, we dismiss the petition because the IJ’s

 9   2020 reasonable fear determination is not subject to judicial

10   review and the 2021 petition is not timely to challenge the

11   1997 removal order or the 2013 reinstatement of that order.

12   See    Bhaktibhai-Patel,           32       F.4th      at    191;    but     see    Tomas-

13   Ramos v. Garland,        24        F.4th           973,     980     n.3      (4th       Cir.

14   2022) (finding        that        an        IJ's    negative        reasonable          fear

15   determination constitutes a “final order”).

16          For   the   foregoing      reasons,         the    petition     for       review   is

17   DISMISSED.         All other pending motions and applications are

18   DENIED as moot and stays VACATED.

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

                                                   4