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,

(2011). Our jurisdiction is

23 limited to review of petitions filed within 30 days of “final

2 1 order[s] of removal.”

(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,

(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,

(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,

, 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