Filed: Aug. 09, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: 11-3947 Khan v. Holder BIA A095 959 827 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 “SUMMA
Summary: 11-3947 Khan v. Holder BIA A095 959 827 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..
More
11-3947
Khan v. Holder
BIA
A095 959 827
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 9th day of August, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 KHALID KHAN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-3947
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Michael J. Campise, Ferro & Cuccia, New
25 York, NY.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
28 Attorney General; Russell Verby, Senior
29 Litigation Counsel; Nancy K. Canter,
30 Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration
31 Litigation, Civil Division, United States
32 Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
33
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Khalid Khan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks
6 review of an August 31, 2011 order of the BIA denying his
7 motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Khalid
8 Khan, No. A095 959 827 (B.I.A. Aug. 31, 2011). We assume
9 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
10 procedural history of the case.
11 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
12 abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517
13 (2d Cir. 2006). Here, the BIA did not abuse its discretion
14 by denying Khan’s motion to reopen as untimely because he
15 filed it more than five years after his final order of
16 removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C).
17 Although the time limits on motions to reopen may be
18 excused when the movant demonstrates changed country
19 conditions, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii), the BIA
20 reasonably concluded that Khan did not demonstrate changed
21 conditions in Pakistan. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546
22 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008) (providing that we review the
2
1 the agency’s factual findings regarding country conditions
2 under the substantial evidence standard).
3 In support of reopening, Khan submitted letters from
4 his family in Pakistan asserting that his parents’ house had
5 been destroyed by the Taliban and that Khan was on the
6 Taliban’s list of people it was targeting, as well as his
7 own affidavit reiterating those assertions and photographs
8 purportedly showing the destruction of his parents’ home.
9 Contrary to Khan’s contention, the BIA did not ignore this
10 evidence; rather, it explicitly referred to the evidence he
11 presented, but gave it little weight. See Xiao Ji Chen v.
12 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 337 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006)
13 (“[W]e presume that [the agency] has taken into account all
14 of the evidence before [it], unless the record compellingly
15 suggests otherwise”). Moreover, the BIA did not abuse its
16 discretion by not crediting Khan’s evidence, as he
17 previously admitted that he filed a false application for
18 relief and gave false testimony. See Qin Wen Zheng v.
19 Gonzales,
500 F.3d 143, 148 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that the
20 BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to credit
21 unauthenticated documents submitted with a motion to reopen
22 where the alien had been found not credible in the
3
1 underlying proceedings); Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160,
2 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[A] single false document or a single
3 instance of false testimony may (if attributable to the
4 petitioner) infect the balance of the alien’s uncorroborated
5 or unauthenticated evidence.”).
6 Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
7 Khan’s motion as untimely, we do not address Khan’s argument
8 that he established his prima facie eligibility for asylum.
9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
11 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
12 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
13 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
14 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
15 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
16 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
17 FOR THE COURT:
18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
19
20
4
