Filed: Jun. 26, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 15-2773 Salto-Seico v. Sessions BIA Straus, IJ A200 897 646 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
Summary: 15-2773 Salto-Seico v. Sessions BIA Straus, IJ A200 897 646 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 ..
More
15-2773
Salto-Seico v. Sessions
BIA
Straus, IJ
A200 897 646
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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 26th day of June, two thousand seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
8 ROBERT D. SACK,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 OLGER ABEL SALTO-SEICO,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 15-2773
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED
19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Osakwe, Hartford, CT.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
26 Assistant Attorney General; Shelley
27 R. Goad, Assistant Director; Nancy
28 K. Canter, Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, DC.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
4 DISMISSED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
5 Petitioner Olger Abel Salto-Seico, a native and citizen of
6 Ecuador, seeks review of a March 4, 2015, decision of the BIA
7 affirming a February 5, 2013, decision of the Immigration Judge
8 denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
9 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and an
10 August 25, 2015, decision of the BIA denying his motion to
11 reopen. In re Olger Abel Salto-Seico, No. A200 897 646 (B.I.A.
12 A.K. Marsh. 4, 2015), aff’g No. A200 897 646 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Feb.
13 5, 2013); In re Olger Abel Salto-Seico, No. A200 897 646 (B.I.A.
14 Aug. 25, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
15 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
16 We dismiss the petition for review as to the BIA’s March
17 2015 decision ordering Salto-Seico removed to Ecuador and
18 denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
19 CAT relief. We lack jurisdiction to review that decision
20 because the September 2015 petition for review is untimely to
21 challenge a March 2015 decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“A
22 petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after
23 the date of the final order of removal.”); Luna v. Holder, 637
2
1 F.3d 85, 92 (2d Cir. 2011). “[T]he filing of a motion to reopen
2 does not toll the time for filing a petition for review of the
3 BIA's final exclusion or deportation orders[.]” Kaur v. BIA,
4
413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005).
5 Salto-Seico’s brief raises no arguments with respect to the
6 BIA’s denial of reopening. “Issues not sufficiently argued in
7 the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be
8 addressed on appeal.” Norton v. Sam’s Club,
145 F.3d 114, 117
9 (2d Cir. 1998). Accordingly, he has waived review of that
10 determination and we deny the petition as to the August 2015
11 decision. Id.; see also Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales,
426 F.3d
12 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005).
13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
14 DISMISSED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. As we have completed our
15 review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted
16 in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay
17 of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending
18 request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in
19 accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2),
20 and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
21 FOR THE COURT:
22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3
