Galindo Guzman v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
• Decided: February 13, 2026
• Docket: 23-7552
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

23-7552 Galindo Guzman v. Bondi BIA Drucker, IJ A201 078 892

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 for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 13th day of February, two thousand 4 twenty-six. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JOAQUIN ASUNCION GALINDO 14 GUZMAN, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 23-7552 18 NAC 19 PAMELA BONDI, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 1 FOR PETITIONER: Melinda M. Basaran, B.K. Law Firm, LLC, 2 Clifton, NJ. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant 5 Attorney General; Sarah A. Byrd, Senior 6 Litigation Counsel; Robert P. Coleman III, 7 Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration 8 Litigation, United States Department of 9 Justice, Washington, DC. 10 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of

12 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

13 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

14 Petitioner Joaquin Asuncion Galindo Guzman, a native and citizen of

15 Mexico, seeks review of an October 3, 2023 decision of the BIA, denying his motion

16 to reconsider its prior denial of his request for administrative closure of his

17 removal proceedings. In re Galindo Guzman, No. A 201 078 892 (B.I.A. Oct. 3, 2023).

18 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural

19 history.

20 As the government correctly notes, only the October 2023 denial of

21 reconsideration, not the underlying April 2023 BIA decision, is before us. See Jin

22 Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (explaining that

23 the Court was “precluded from passing on the merits of the underlying . . . 2 1 proceedings” where the petition was filed from the denial of reconsideration

2 (quotation marks and citation omitted)); cf. Castejon-Paz v. Bondi, 143 F.4th 116, 118

3 (2d Cir. 2025) (explaining that the 30-day filing deadline for a petition for review

4 is “a claim-processing rule that can be subject to waiver or forfeiture” (citation

5 omitted)).

6 Thus, we do not reach Galindo Guzman’s challenges to the agency’s denial

7 of cancellation of removal, and review only whether the BIA abused its discretion

8 in denying his motion to reconsider its rejection of his request for administrative

9 closure. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 173 (2d Cir. 2008) (“We review

10 the denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion.”). A motion to

11 reconsider “is a request that the Board reexamine its decision in light of additional

12 legal arguments, a change of law, or perhaps an argument or aspect of the case

13 which was overlooked.” Matter of Cerna, 20 I. & N. Dec. 399, 402 n.2 (B.I.A. 1991)

14 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, a motion to reconsider

15 “shall specify the errors of law or fact in the previous order and shall be supported

16 by pertinent authority.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C).

17 We find no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s denial of Galindo Guzman’s

18 motion for reconsideration. Although Galindo Guzman sought reconsideration 3 1 of the denial of administrative closure, he did not identify a basis for closure. He

2 cited Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I. & N. Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021), but that decision

3 identifies the standard for administrative closure, and the referenced standards

4 include consideration of “the reason administrative closure is sought” and “the

5 likelihood the respondent will succeed on any petition, application, or other action

6 he or she is pursuing outside of removal proceedings.” 28 I. & N. Dec. at 327 n.1.

7 Galindo Guzman has not alleged that he is eligible for relief outside of removal

8 proceedings and has failed to identify a meritorious basis for administrative

9 closure. The unpublished BIA decisions attached to his motion do not persuade

10 us otherwise, as the decisions do not provide details about the underlying

11 proceedings or the bases for the requests for administrative closure, and thus, they

12 fail to demonstrate that the BIA’s decision was inconsistent with other Board

13 cases.. Furthermore, Galindo Guzman’s motion to reconsider reiterated his

14 request for administrative closure, but did not allege or identify error in the

15 underlying decision as required for reconsideration, i.e., he did not allege that

16 there was evidence that the Department of Homeland Security would exercise

17 prosecutorial discretion to close or terminate his removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C.

18 § 1229a(c)(6)(C). 4 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending

2 motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

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