Barnaby v. Holder

Second Circuit

Barnaby v. Holder

326 F. App'x 623

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 18, 2009

DocketNo. 08-2162-ag

StatusPublished

This text of 326 F. App'x 623 (Barnaby v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barnaby v. Holder, 326 F. App'x 623 (2d Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Maureen Elizabeth Barnaby, a native and citizen of Jamaica, seeks review of the April 4, 2008 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which denied her motion for reconsideration or reopening of her removal proceedings. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts of the case, its procedural history, and the scope of the issues on appeal. Barnaby’s motion — construed as either a motion to reconsider or reopen— was untimely and not subject to any of the enumerated exceptions. The BIA decided not to reopen the case sua sponte, and we lack jurisdiction over that decision. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d Cir.2006) (per curiam) (“a decision of the BIA whether to reopen a case sua sponte under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) is entirely discretionary and therefore beyond our review”). We have considered all of Barnaby’s arguments and find them without merit. Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Maureen Elizabeth Barnaby, a native and citizen of Jamaica, seeks review of the April 4, 2008 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which denied her motion for reconsideration or reopening of her removal proceedings. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts of the case, its procedural history, and the scope of the issues on appeal. Barnaby’s motion — construed as either a motion to reconsider or reopen— was untimely and not subject to any of the enumerated exceptions. The BIA decided not to reopen the case sua sponte, and we lack jurisdiction over that decision. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d Cir.2006) (per curiam) (“a decision of the BIA whether to reopen a case sua sponte under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) is entirely discretionary and therefore beyond our review”). We have considered all of Barnaby’s arguments and find them without merit. Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 F. App'x 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnaby-v-holder-ca2-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack