-
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