Magassouba v. Bondi

── Magassouba v. Bondi ── Case No.: 23-7221 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 19, 2026 Category: General 23-7221 Magassouba v. Bondi BIA A078 430 196 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 for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 19th day of March, two thousand 4 twenty-six. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 BETH ROBINSON, 10 MYRNA PÉREZ, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 MOUSTAPHA MAGASSOUBA, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 23-7221 18 NAC 19 PAMELA BONDI, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent.  1 _____________________________________ 2 3 FOR PETITIONER: Moustapha Magassouba, pro se, New York, 4 NY. 5 6 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant 7 Attorney General; Kohsei Ugumori, Senior 8 Litigation Counsel; Rachel L. Browning, Trial 9 Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 10 United States Department of Justice, 11 Washington, DC. 12 13 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 14 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 15 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. 16 Petitioner, Moustapha Magassouba, a native and citizen of Guinea, seeks 17 review of a September 20, 2023, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen 18 his removal proceedings to apply for adjustment of status. In re Magassouba, No. 19 A078 430 196 (B.I.A. Sep. 20, 2023). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 20 underlying facts and procedural history. 21 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, 22 factual findings for substantial evidence, and questions of law, such as 23 constitutional claims and ineffective assistance of counsel claims, de novo. Luna 2  1 v. Holder, 637 F.3d 85, 102–03 (2d Cir. 2011); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 2 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). “An abuse of discretion may be found in those 3 circumstances where the [BIA’s] decision provides no rational explanation, 4 inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or 5 contains only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where the [BIA] 6 has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 7 265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). 8 It is undisputed that Magassouba’s 2023 motion to reopen was untimely and 9 number-barred because the final administrative order of removal was entered in 10 2011. See 8 U.S.C