Opinion
19-1762 NAC
03-10-2022
IVAN BURGOA, AKA IVAN BURGOA HERNANDE Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. [1]
FOR PETITIONER: Paul B. Grotas, Esq., New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director; Joanna L. Watson, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
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 TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 10th day of March, two thousand twenty-two.
FOR PETITIONER: Paul B. Grotas, Esq., New York, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director; 1
Joanna L. Watson, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, RICHARD C. WESLEY, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Clrcult Judges.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.
Petitioner Ivan Burgoa, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a May 31, 2019, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Ivan Burgoa, No. A 095 980 203 (B.I.A. May 31, 2019). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
Burgoa's petition for review is timely only as to the BIA's decision denying reopening. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir. 2001). The BIA denied Burgoa's December 2018 motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than 90 days after the May 2018 final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (90-day period to move to reopen). Burgoa has waived any challenge to that timeliness ruling by 2 failing to challenge in his brief the timeliness determination or the denial of equitable tolling. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (deeming abandoned claim not raised in the brief).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED. 3