Filed: Sep. 29, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 09-3189-ag Basra v. Holder BIA A078 725 336 A078 725 337 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 TH
Summary: 09-3189-ag Basra v. Holder BIA A078 725 336 A078 725 337 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..
More
09-3189-ag
Basra v. Holder
BIA
A078 725 336
A078 725 337
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 29 th day of September, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 ROBERT D. SACK,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 HARINDER SINGH BASRA, HARVINDER
14 KAUR BASRA
15 Petitioners,
16 09-3189-ag
17 v. NAC
18
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 ______________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONERS: Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, New
25 York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
28 General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant
29 Director; Elizabeth Young, Trial
30 Attorney, Office of Immigration
31 Litigation, United States Department
32 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
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 Petitioners, Harinder Singh Basra and Harvinder Kaur
6 Basra, natives and citizens of India, seek review of a July
7 7, 2009, order of the BIA denying their motion to reopen
8 their removal proceedings. In re Basra, Nos. A078 725
9 336/337 (B.I.A. July 7, 2009). We assume the parties’
10 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
11 of the case.
12 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
13 abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d
14 Cir. 2006). When the BIA considers relevant evidence of
15 country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, we
16 review the BIA’s factual findings under the substantial
17 evidence standard. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
546 F.3d
18 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008).
19 An alien may file only one motion to reopen and must do
20 so within 90 days of the final administrative decision.
21 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is
22 no dispute that the Petitioners’ motion to reopen – filed
2
1 over four years after the BIA issued a final order in their
2 case – was untimely. However, these limitations do not
3 apply if the alien establishes materially changed
4 circumstances arising in the country of nationality.
5 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
6 The BIA reasonably found that the Petitioners did not
7 establish changed country conditions excusing the time
8 limitation on their motion to reopen. Although the
9 Petitioners assert that Indian police and security forces
10 continue to engage in various types of misconduct, there was
11 no indication that such conduct was aimed at Sikhs or pro-
12 Sikh groups, or that such problems did not exist prior to
13 the Petitioners’ departure from India in 1999. Thus, the
14 BIA reasonably found that the Petitioners’ submissions in
15 support of their motion to reopen reflected only “a
16 continuation of circumstances substantially similar to those
17 that existed at the time of [their] hearing with regard to
18 the treatment of Sikhs in India.” Moreover, the BIA
19 reasonably declined to afford any weight to letters from the
20 Petitioners’ friends and family given the similarities among
21 the letters and the lack of any details regarding why the
22 police visited their homes looking for the Petitioners. See
3
1 Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d
2 Cir. 2006); cf. Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 489
3 F.3d 517, 519 (2d Cir. 2007) (finding that when two
4 documents allegedly provided by different persons “are
5 strikingly similar in their structure or language,” an IJ
6 may “treat those similarities as evidence supporting an
7 adverse credibility finding.”).
8 Although the Petitioners additionally argue that the
9 BIA impermissibly declined to analyze their claim of a well-
10 founded fear of future persecution, because the BIA
11 reasonably determined that they failed to meet the threshold
12 requirement of demonstrating changed country conditions that
13 would excuse the time limitation on their motion to reopen,
14 it was under no obligation to analyze that claim.
15 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2),
16 (3). We therefore conclude that the BIA did not abuse its
17 discretion in denying the Petitioners’ untimely motion to
18 reopen. See
Ali, 448 F.3d at 517.
19 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
20 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
21 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
22 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
4
1 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
2 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
3 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
4 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
7
8
9
10
5
