Filed: Apr. 22, 2020
Latest Update: Apr. 22, 2020
Summary: 18-2410 Kabir v. Barr BIA A070 582 946 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 “SUMMAR
Summary: 18-2410 Kabir v. Barr BIA A070 582 946 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..
More
18-2410
Kabir v. Barr
BIA
A070 582 946
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 22nd day of April, two thousand twenty.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
8 Chief Judge,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 MICHAEL H. PARK,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 MOHAMMED KABIR,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 18-2410
18 NAC
19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Salim Sheikh, Esq., New York, NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Mary Jane Candaux,
28 Assistant Director; Stephanie E.
29 Beckett, Trial Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, United
2 States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, DC.
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
7 is DENIED.
8 Petitioner Mohammed Kabir, a native and citizen of
9 Bangladesh, seeks review of a July 16, 2018 decision of the
10 BIA denying his motion to reopen as untimely. In re Mohammed
11 Kabir, No. A 070 582 946 (B.I.A. July 16, 2018). We assume
12 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
13 procedural history in this case.
14 We review the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen for
15 abuse of discretion but review any finding regarding changed
16 country conditions for substantial evidence. Jian Hui Shao
17 v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). An alien
18 seeking to reopen proceedings may file only one motion to
19 reopen no later than 90 days after the date on which
20 the final administrative decision was rendered. 8 U.S.C.
21 § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Kabir’s
22 January 2018 motion to reopen was untimely filed more than 17
2
1 years after his 2000 removal order. The 90-day time
2 limitation does not apply if reopening is sought to apply for
3 asylum “based on changed country conditions arising in the
4 country of nationality or the country to which removal has
5 been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not
6 available and would not have been discovered or presented at
7 the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii);
8 see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Here, the BIA
9 reasonably concluded that Kabir’s evidence did not establish
10 such a change.
11 Kabir argues that conditions have worsened for Jatiya
12 Party members like himself. “In determining whether evidence
13 accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates a material
14 change in country conditions that would justify reopening,
15 [the agency] compare[s] the evidence of country conditions
16 submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time
17 of the merits hearing below.” In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec.
18 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007). In support of reopening, Kabir
19 submitted news articles and State Department Human Rights
20 Reports for Bangladesh. The articles report that the Jatiya
21 Party chairman was detained in a hospital in 2013 after he
3
1 threatened to commit suicide if arrested and a former Jatiya
2 Party leader was murdered by unknown assailants in 2016.
3 Certified Administrative Record at 71–77. The articles also
4 reflect general religious and political violence in
5 Bangladesh and the Awami League’s crackdown on political
6 dissent. Id. at 80–90. The 2015 and 2016 State Department
7 reports similarly discuss that crackdown and political and
8 religious violence, but the reports do not mention any
9 specific targeting of the Jatiya Party, which the 2016 report
10 characterizes as the “official opposition party” and “part of
11 the ruling coalition.”
Id. at 121.
12 The record reflects similar conditions at the time of
13 Kabir’s proceedings before the IJ in 1998. At that time, the
14 Awami League was in power, and political violence in
15 Bangladesh was widespread.
Id. at 420, 425, 435.
16 Accordingly, because the evidence did not reflect a material
17 change for members of the Jatiya Party, the BIA did not abuse
18 its discretion in denying Kabir’s motion as untimely. See 8
19 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C). Because the denial of the motion
20 as untimely is dispositive, we do not reach Kabir’s additional
21 arguments regarding the merits of his underlying claims for
4
1 relief.
2 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
3 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
4 stays VACATED.
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
7 Clerk of Court
5
