Mejia v. Lynch

Second Circuit

Mejia v. Lynch

633 F. App'x 34

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 9, 2016

DocketNo. 13-1252

StatusPublished

This text of 633 F. App'x 34 (Mejia v. Lynch) 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

Mejia v. Lynch, 633 F. App'x 34 (2d Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Dolores Oswaldo Morales Mejia, a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a March 14, 2013, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Morales Mejia, No. A029 728 460 (B.I.A. Mar. 14, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, remaining “mindful that motions to reopen are ‘disfavored.’” Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322-23, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992)); Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying reopening because Morales failed to submit an application for relief with his motion, as required under the regulations. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Dolores Oswaldo Morales Mejia, a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a March 14, 2013, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Morales Mejia, No. A029 728 460 (B.I.A. Mar. 14, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, remaining “mindful that motions to reopen are ‘disfavored.’” Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322-23, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992)); Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying reopening because Morales failed to submit an application for relief with his motion, as required under the regulations. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

633 F. App'x 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mejia-v-lynch-ca2-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack