Filed: Feb. 09, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 09-5109-ag Kaur v. Holder BIA A073 507 467 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 “SU
Summary: 09-5109-ag Kaur v. Holder BIA A073 507 467 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 “SUM..
More
09-5109-ag
Kaur v. Holder
BIA
A073 507 467
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 February, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 REENA RAGGI,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _________________________________________
12
13 HARMINDER KAUR,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-5109-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _________________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh,
24 Jackson Heights, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney General;
27 Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director;
28 Stefanie A. Svoren, Trial Attorney,
29 Office of Immigration Litigation,
30 United States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, D.C.
1
2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
3 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
4 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
5 is DENIED.
6 Petitioner Harminder Kaur, a native of India, seeks
7 review of the November 16, 2009, order of the BIA denying her
8 motion to reopen. In re Harminder Kaur, No. A073 507 467
9 (B.I.A. Nov. 16, 2009). We review the BIA’s denial of a
10 motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Ali v.
11 Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). When the BIA
12 evaluates country conditions evidence submitted with a motion
13 to reopen, however, we review those findings for substantial
14 evidence. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d
15 Cir. 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
16 underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
17 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kaur’s
18 untimely motion to reopen. See
Ali, 448 F.3d at 517. A
19 motion to reopen must generally be filed no later than 90 days
20 after the date on which the final administrative decision was
21 rendered in the proceedings sought to be reopened. 8 C.F.R.
22 § 1003.2(c)(2). There is no dispute that Kaur’s motion to
23 reopen, filed in January 2009, was untimely, where the IJ
2
1 issued a final in absentia order of exclusion in July 1995.
2 See id.
3 The time and number limitations do not apply to a motion
4 to reopen if it is “based on changed circumstances arising in
5 the country of nationality or in the country to which
6 deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and
7 was not available and could not have been discovered or
8 presented at the previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R.
9 § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). In denying Kaur’s motion to reopen, the
10 BIA did not err in concluding that Kaur failed to demonstrate
11 a material change in country conditions in India. See Jian
12 Hui
Shao, 546 F.3d at 169.
13 Contrary to Kaur’s contentions, the BIA considered the
14 evidence she submitted, and did not err in finding the
15 documentary evidence inadequate. As the BIA noted, her
16 documents were unauthenticated, lacked detail, and failed to
17 explain how any changes in India’s country conditions led to
18 the government’s interest in Kaur. Rather, the documents
19 suggested that authorities sought Kaur for the same reason
20 they allegedly sought her before she left. Furthermore, the
21 U.S. Department of State’s Country Report on Human Rights
22 Practices in India for 2007 that Kaur submitted with her
3
1 motion did not state that conditions had worsened, but that
2 “numerous serious problems remained.” (emphasis added). See
3 Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 147 (2d Cir. 2007)
4 (holding that “the BIA does not abuse its discretion in
5 crediting the State Department reports in the face of
6 uncorroborated anecdotal evidence to the contrary”).
7 Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
8 Kaur’s motion to reopen based on its finding that the evidence
9 Kaur submitted was insufficient to establish changed
10 circumstances that would materially alter the outcome of her
11 case. See Jian Hui
Shao, 546 F.3d at 169. For the
12 foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we
13 have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court
14 previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any
15 pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is
16 DISMISSED as moot.
17 FOR THE COURT:
18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
19
4
