Filed: Jul. 31, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: 11-4789 BIA Buta v. Holder A074 855 818 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: 11-4789 BIA Buta v. Holder A074 855 818 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
11-4789 BIA
Buta v. Holder A074 855 818
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 31st day of July, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 ROBERT D. SACK,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 ALEXANDRA BUTA,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-4789
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Charles Christophe, Christophe Law
24 Group, P.C., New York, NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Edward J. Duffy,
28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Zoe J.
29 Heller, Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 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 Petitioner Alexandra Buta, a native and citizen of
6 Albania, seeks review of a November 7, 2011, decision of the
7 BIA denying her motion to reopen her removal proceedings.
8 In re Alexandra Buta, No. A074 855 818 (B.I.A. Nov. 7,
9 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
10 underlying facts and procedural history in this 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) (per curiam). An alien seeking to reopen
14 proceedings is required to file a motion to reopen no later
15 than 90 days after the date on which the final
16 administrative decision was rendered and is permitted to
17 file only one such motion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A),
18 (C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is no dispute that
19 Buta’s second motion to reopen, filed in May 2011, was
20 untimely and number-barred, because the BIA issued a final
21 order of removal in November 2002.
22 Buta contends, however, that she established a material
23 change in conditions excusing the untimely and number-barred
2
1 motion, based on an increase in violent attacks and human
2 trafficking targeting ethnic Greeks and members of the Greek
3 Orthodox religion in Albania. See 8 U.S.C.
4 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).
5 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that
6 conditions for ethnic Greeks and members of the Greek
7 Orthodox religion had not materially changed in Albania.
8 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.
9 2008). While Buta argues that she established a material
10 increase in human trafficking through Dr. Bernd J. Fischer’s
11 statement, the BIA reasonably concluded that human
12 trafficking had been an ongoing problem since the time of
13 Buta’s 2000 merits hearing. See Xiao Ji Chen v. Dep’t of
14 Justice,
471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that the
15 weight afforded to the applicant’s evidence in immigration
16 proceedings lies largely within the discretion of the
17 agency); see also In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253
18 (B.I.A. 2007) (“In determining whether evidence accompanying
19 a motion to reopen demonstrates a material change in country
20 conditions that would justify reopening, [the BIA] compares
21 the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion
22 to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing
3
1 below.”). Indeed, the BIA explicitly noted that Dr.
2 Fischer’s statement – which discussed a 2000 report from the
3 Albanian government noting that 30,000 Albanian sex workers
4 were then working abroad – indicated that human trafficking
5 had been an ongoing problem since at least 2000.
6 While Buta takes issue with the BIA’s determination
7 that Dr. Fischer’s statement reflected a continuation rather
8 than a material increase in human trafficking, where, as
9 here, the BIA’s inference “is tethered to the evidentiary
10 record, we will accord deference to the finding.” See Siewe
11 v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2007) (finding
12 that “support for a contrary inference – even one more
13 plausible or more natural – does not suggest error”).
14 Moreover, although Buta asserts that the BIA erred in
15 finding that there was no evidence that ethnic Greeks or
16 members of the Greek Orthodox religion are targeted for
17 human trafficking in Albania, she has failed to specifically
18 identify any evidence allegedly overlooked by the BIA. See
19 Xiao Ji
Chen, 471 F.3d at 337 n.17 (presuming that the
20 agency “has taken into account all of the evidence before
21 [it], unless the record compellingly suggests otherwise”);
22 see also Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (An appellant’s opening
23 brief must contain the “appellant’s contentions and the
24 reasons for them.”).
4
1 Similarly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in
2 finding that Buta failed to demonstrate a material change in
3 country conditions on the basis of the her evidence
4 discussing the 2010 killing of ethnic Greek Aristotelis
5 Goumas. See Xiao Ji Chen, 471 F.3d at 342. In considering
6 this evidence, the BIA reasonably found that it was
7 inconclusive as to the cause of Goumas’s death. Indeed,
8 Buta’s evidence stated that an expert’s investigation had
9 found that Goumas was killed in a car accident, which he
10 caused. We will accord deference to the finding. See
11
Siewe, 480 F.3d at 168-69.
12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
13 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
14 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
15 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
16 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
17 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
18 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
19 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
20 FOR THE COURT:
21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
22
23
5
