Recinos v. Garland ( 2022 )

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