19-3 Ahmed v. Garland BIA A073 544 457 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 TO 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 Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 7th day of December, two thousand twenty- 5 one. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 FARID AHMED, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-3 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Amy N. Gell, Gell & Gell, New 25 York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 28 General; Anthony P. Nicastro, 1 Assistant Director; Yanal H. 2 Yousef, Trial Attorney, Office of 3 Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, DC. 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Farid Ahmed, a native and citizen of 11 Bangladesh, seeks review of a December 13, 2018, decision of 12 the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Farid Ahmed, No. 13 A 073 544 457 (B.I.A. Dec. 13, 2018). We assume the parties’ 14 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 15 The applicable standards of review are well established. 16 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 17 2008). Ahmed asserted that members of established political 18 parties would persecute him if he returned to Bangladesh 19 because they would impute to him an opposing political opinion 20 based on his brother’s role in a minority political party. 21 He also asked the BIA to reopen his case based on an approved 22 visa petition filed on his behalf by his U.S. citizen wife. 23 We find no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s decision. 2 1 First, it is undisputed that Ahmed’s 2018 motion to 2 reopen was untimely because he filed it more than fifteen 3 years after his removal order became final in 2002. See 4 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). 5 Second, although the filing deadline does not apply if 6 reopening is sought to apply for asylum …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals