Filed: Dec. 20, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 10-4577-ag Mir v. Holder BIA A079 693 932 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
Summary: 10-4577-ag Mir v. Holder BIA A079 693 932 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 “SUMM..
More
10-4577-ag
Mir v. Holder
BIA
A079 693 932
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 20th day of December, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 ZAHEER MIR, AKA ZAHEERUDDIN BABER MIR,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 10-4577-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Alan Michael Strauss, New York, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Douglas E. Ginsburg,
28 Assistant Director; Katherine A.
29 Smith, Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, Civil
31 Division, 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 Zaheer Mir, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks
6 review of an October 15, 2010, order of the BIA denying his
7 motion to reopen. In re Zaheer Mir, No. A079 693 932
8 (B.I.A. Oct. 15, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity
9 with the underlying facts and procedural history of the
10 case.
11 We review the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen for
12 abuse of discretion. Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d
13 Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Because Mir’s motion to reopen was
14 untimely, he was required to establish changed country
15 conditions to except it from the time limit. See 8 U.S.C.
16 § 1229a(c)(7)(C). Contrary to Mir’s characterization, the
17 BIA unambiguously found that he did not establish changed
18 country conditions. That finding was supported by
19 substantial evidence. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546
20 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008) (providing that this Court
21 reviews the agency’s factual findings regarding changed
22 country conditions under the substantial evidence standard).
2
1 Mir presented the agency with some evidence suggesting
2 that there had been an increase in sectarian violence
3 against Shia Muslims in Pakistan between April 2008 and
4 December 2009. The BIA discussed this evidence, noting that
5 an intensification in violence could constitute changed
6 conditions, but reasonably concluded that Mir had not
7 demonstrated a material change in the risk faced by Sunni
8 Muslims sympathetic to and supportive of Shia Muslims. The
9 record supports this conclusion, as it indicates that the
10 violence in Pakistan has been a continuation of the violence
11 before April 2008 and any increase in the number of
12 civilians injured in that violence has been small compared
13 to Pakistan’s entire population. As the BIA noted, Mir did
14 not present evidence showing that his family, either the
15 Shia or Sunni members, had been harmed by the increased
16 violence.
17 Because the BIA discharged its duty of considering the
18 evidence and giving a reasoned explanation for why it did
19 not find changed country conditions, we defer to that
20 finding. See Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70, 78 (2d
21 Cir. 2005) (“When an applicant moves to reopen his case
22 based on worsened country conditions, and introduces
3
1 previously unavailable reports that materially support his
2 original application, the BIA has a duty to consider these
3 reports and issue a reasoned decision based thereon, whether
4 or not these reports are clearly determinative.”); Jian Hui
5 Shao, 546 F.3d at 171 (“We do not ourselves attempt to
6 resolve conflicts in record evidence, a task largely within
7 the discretion of the agency.”). Accordingly the BIA did
8 not abuse its discretion in denying Mir’s motion as
9 untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C).
10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
11 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
12 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
13 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
14 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
15 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
16 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
17 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
18 FOR THE COURT:
19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
20
21
4
