Caguana-Paucar v. Bondi

── Caguana-Paucar v. Bondi ── Case No.: 23-6894 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 17, 2026 Category: General 23-6894 Caguana-Paucar v. Bondi BIA A202 077 084 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 17th day of March, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: JOSEPH F. BIANCO, BETH ROBINSON, SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ XIMENA PAULINA CAGUANA- PAUCAR, Petitioner, v. 23-6894 NAC PAMELA BONDI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Michael Borja, Borja Law Firm, P.C., Jackson Heights, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel; Keith I. McManus, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Ximena Paulina Caguana-Paucar, a native and citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a July 10, 2023 decision of the BIA, denying her motion to reissue its prior decision dismissing her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Caguana-Paucar, No. A 202 077 084 (B.I.A. July 10, 2023). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Our review is limited to the BIA’s decision declining to reissue because Caguana-Paucar’s petition for review is timely only as to that decision, and a 2 motion to reissue does not render the BIA’s prior decisions reviewable. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (setting 30-day deadline for a petition for review); Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (concluding that the Court was precluded from reaching underlying decision where petition was timely only as to denial of reopening). While the 30-day deadline is not jurisdictional and can be waived or forfeited by the Government, see Riley v. Bondi, 606 U.S. 259, 272–77 (2025), the Government seeks to enforce the deadline here. Even assuming that equitable exceptions are available in some circumstances, Caguana-Paucar has not argued that such an exception applies here. See Debique v. Garland, 58 F.4th 676, 684 (2d Cir. 2023) (“We consider abandoned any claims not adequately presented in an appellant’s brief, and an appellant’s failure to make legal or factual