19-1856
Lin v. Garland
BIA
A079 141 366
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 TO 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 September, two thousand twenty-
5 one.
6
7 PRESENT:
8 GERARD E. LYNCH,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 WILLIAM J. NARDINI,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 BAI XIANG LIN,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 19-1856
18 NAC
19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Margaret W. Wong, Esq., Margaret
25 W. Wong & Assoc., LLC, Cleveland,
26 OH.
27
28 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant
29 Attorney General; Cindy S.
30 Ferrier, Assistant Director;
1 Tracie N. Jones, Trial Attorney,
2 Office of Immigration Litigation,
3 United States Department of
4 Justice, Washington, DC.
5
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
9 is GRANTED.
10 Petitioner Bai Xiang Lin, a native and citizen of the
11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 31, 2019,
12 decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal
13 proceedings. In re Bai Xiang Lin, No. A079 141 366 (B.I.A.
14 May 31, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
15 underlying facts and procedural history.
16 We review the BIA’s denial of motion to reopen for abuse
17 of discretion. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138,
18 168-69, 173 (2d Cir. 2008). It is undisputed that Lin’s 2018
19 motion to reopen was untimely and number barred because it
20 was filed more than eight years after his removal order became
21 final in 2009 and it was his fourth such motion. See 8 U.S.C.
22 § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i) (providing for one motion to reopen
2
1 within 90 days of removal order); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)
2 (same).
3 Lin argued that, despite his untimely and number barred
4 filing, the BIA should have reopened his removal proceedings
5 in view of Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). Under
6 Pereira, Lin’s deficient notice to appear (“NTA”), which did
7 not specify the date and time of his removal hearing, failed
8 to trigger the “stop-time rule” (8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)).
9 Accordingly, time continued to accrue towards the ten-year
10 physical presence requirement for cancellation of removal.
11 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). The BIA concluded that Lin’s
12 defective NTA was perfected when he received a subsequent
13 hearing notice providing the missing information, and the
14 stop-time rule effectively barred the possibility of
15 cancelling Lin’s removal. The Supreme Court has since
16 rejected the BIA’s position, holding that an NTA that fails
17 to specify the date and time of a hearing is not cured for
18 purposes of the stop-time rule by a subsequent hearing notice
19 that provides the missing information. See Niz-Chavez v.
20 Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021).
3
1 Although we generally lack jurisdiction to review the
2 BIA’s decision insofar as it declined to reopen proceedings
3 sua sponte, see Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d Cir.
4 2006), we may remand when, as here, the BIA “misperceived the
5 legal background and thought, incorrectly, that a reopening
6 would necessarily fail,” Mahmood v. Holder, 570 F.3d 466, 469
7 (2d Cir. 2009).
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the BIA. All pending
10 motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.
11 FOR THE COURT:
12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
13 Clerk of Court
4