Case Information
*1 Lynch Morace, IJ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY IS PERMITTED 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 NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At stated term United States Court Second Circuit, held Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square, City New York, th December, two thousand sixteen.
PRESENT: PIERRE LEVAL,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges,
EDWARD R. KORMAN,
District Judge. *
RAXABEN AHIR,
Petitioner, LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY * Judge Edward R. Korman, District Eastern District New York, sitting by designation.
GENERAL,
Respondent. ** FOR PETITIONER: Garish Sarin, Los Angeles, CA. RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Jennifer Williams, Senior Litigation Counsel; Stuart S. Nickum, Trial Attorney; Kate Scanlan, Law Clerk; Office of Immigration Litigation, Department of Washington, D.C. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION review Board of Immigration (“BIA”) decision, is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, DECREED is
Petitioner Raxaben Ahir, native citizen India, seeks September affirming July decision Immigration Judge, denied and, alternative, proceedings. re Raxaben Ahir, No. A074 Sept. 2013), aff’g (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. July assume parties’ familiarity with underlying facts ** directed amend official caption conform above.
procedural history in case, to refer only as necessary to explain our to grant the deny it in
We both IJ’s BIA’s decisions “for the sake completeness,” Zaman Mukasey, omitted), agency’s denial motion to reopen abuse discretion, Ali The rejected Ahir’s claim that ineffective assistance counsel excused her to December It so on ground that “has presented evidence that [the person she alleged was her attorney] actually represented her.” We that abused its discretion. Contrary to BIA’s determination, filed declaration her motion to that included allegations about her counsel’s representation. We therefore grant Ahir’s denial motion to reopen. turn next denial Ahir’s motion rescind absentia exclusion order. incorrect standard treating motion rescind as subject ‐ time limitation denying on ground that was time ‐ barred. An alien who moves issued absentia faces no time limit motion. re: N B , I. *4 & Dec. 590, 593 1999); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(B). But we Ahir failed exhaust issue whether correct standard. Ahir has never challenged error, declining raise issue before even before this Court. And evaluating timeliness rescind, agency has never considered whether had “reasonable cause” initial 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(B); see Waldron v. I.N.S., F.3d n.7 (2d Cir. Because failed exhaust issue not address sua sponte, do not it. Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t F.3d n.1 2007); Foster INS, (2d Cir. 2004); see also Zhang n.7 (“Issues not sufficiently argued briefs are considered waived normally will be addressed appeal.”) omitted).
For foregoing reasons, COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,