Recinos v. Garland ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •      18-594
    Recinos v. Garland
    McCarthy, IJ
    A040 427 185
    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
    2   for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
    3   United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
    4   New York, on the 29th day of August, two thousand twenty-
    5   two.
    6
    7   PRESENT:
    8            ROBERT D. SACK,
    9            DENNY CHIN,
    10            MICHAEL H. PARK,
    11                 Circuit Judges.
    12   _____________________________________
    13
    14   FERNANDO RECINOS,
    15            Petitioner,
    16
    17                        v.                                  18-594
    18                                                            NAC
    19   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
    20   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    21            Respondent.
    22   _____________________________________
    23
    24   FOR PETITIONER:                      Stephen W. Manning, Immigrant Law
    25                                        Group PC, Portland, OR.
    26
    27   FOR RESPONDENT:                      Joseph H. Hunt, Acting Assistant
    28                                        Attorney General; Leslie McKay,
    29                                        Senior Litigation Counsel; Margot
    30                                        L. Carter, Trial Attorney, Office
    1                                     of Immigration Litigation, United
    2                                     States Department of Justice,
    3                                     Washington, DC.
    4          UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
    5   decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”), it is hereby ORDERED,
    6   ADJUDGED,      AND     DECREED   that    the   petition          for    review   is
    7   DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
    8          Petitioner Fernando Recinos, a native and citizen of
    9   Honduras,      seeks    review   of     an   IJ’s     August     2017    decision
    10   concurring with the Department of Homeland Security’s finding
    11   that    Recinos      did   not   establish        a      reasonable      fear    of
    12   persecution or torture.           In re Fernando Recinos, No. A 040
    13   427 185 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Aug. 14, 2017).                       We assume the
    14   parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural
    15   history.
    16          Although neither Recinos nor the Government challenges
    17   our     jurisdiction,      “federal      courts       have     an      independent
    18   obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of
    19   their jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise and decide
    20   jurisdictional questions that the parties either overlook or
    21   elect    not    to   press.”      Henderson         ex    rel.      Henderson    v.
    22   Shinseki, 
    562 U.S. 428
    , 434 (2011).                      Our jurisdiction is
    23   limited to review of petitions filed within 30 days of “final
    2
    1   order[s] of removal.”    
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (a)(1), (b)(1).
    2        We lack jurisdiction here.           Recinos’s September 2017
    3   petition is not timely from his July 2001 removal order or
    4   the June 2017 reinstatement of that order.              See 8 U.S.C.
    5   § 1252(b)(1); Luna v. Holder, 
    637 F.3d 85
    , 92 (2d Cir. 2011)
    6   (“Th[e] 30–day filing requirement is jurisdictional and is
    7   not subject to equitable tolling.” (quotation marks omitted)
    8   (quoting Ruiz-Martinez v. Mukasey, 
    516 F.3d 102
    , 105-06 (2d
    9   Cir. 2008))).    An IJ’s reasonable-fear determination, such
    10   as the order challenged here, is not a final order of removal
    11   because it does “not determine whether the alien is deportable
    12   or   order   deportation,”    or   “affect   the    validity   of   any
    13   determination     regarding    an      alien’s     deportability    or
    14   deportation.” Bhaktibhai-Patel v. Garland, 
    32 F.4th 180
    , 190
    15   (2d Cir. 2022) (cleaned up).
    16        For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
    17   DISMISSED.    All pending motions and applications are DENIED
    18   and stays VACATED.
    19                                          FOR THE COURT:
    20                                          Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
    21                                          Clerk of Court
    22
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-594

Filed Date: 8/29/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/29/2022