Filed: Jan. 26, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 09-3436-ag (L) Rahim v. Holder BIA A073 556 822 A073 556 823 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 (WIT
Summary: 09-3436-ag (L) Rahim v. Holder BIA A073 556 822 A073 556 823 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
09-3436-ag (L)
Rahim v. Holder
BIA
A073 556 822
A073 556 823
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 26 th day of January, two thousand eleven.
PRESENT:
JON O. NEWMAN,
REENA RAGGI,
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________
TASNINA RAHIM, MD MAHMUDUR RAHIM,
Petitioners,
v. 09-3436-ag (L)
09-3440-ag (Con)
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_________________________________________
FOR PETITIONERS: Salim Sheikh, New York, New York
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; David V. Bernal, Assistant
Director; Lindsay E. Williams,
Attorney, Office of Immigration
Litigation, United States Department
of Justice, Washington, D.C.
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.
Petitioners, natives and citizens of Bangladesh, seek
review of the July 21, 2009 order of the BIA denying their
motion to reopen. In re Rahim, No. A073 556 823/822 (B.I.A.
July 21, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
As a preliminary matter, we note that because our
review is limited to the BIA’s decision of July 2009,
Petitioners’ challenges to the agency’s earlier decisions –
i.e., the 1996 decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) and
the BIA’s 1998 decision dismissing Petitioners’ appeal of
the IJ’s decision – are not properly before us. See Kaur v.
BIA,
413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Stone v.
INS,
514 U.S. 386, 405-06 (1995). Accordingly, we do not
reach Petitioners’ challenge to the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination.
We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales,
448 F.3d 515, 517
(2d Cir. 2006). To the extent the BIA evaluated evidence of
2
changed country conditions, we review its findings for
substantial evidence. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
546
F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
Petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely. A motion to
reopen must generally be filed no later than 90 days after
the date on which the final administrative decision was
rendered in the proceedings sought to be reopened. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2). There is no dispute that Petitioners’
motion to reopen, filed in December 2008, more than ten
years after the BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of their asylum
application, was untimely. Furthermore, the BIA did not err
in concluding that Petitioners failed to demonstrate a
material change in country conditions as required to warrant
consideration of their untimely motion, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), because the evidence they submitted did
not rebut the agency’s prior adverse credibility
determination. See Kaur v.
BIA, 413 F.3d at 234.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
3
this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4