NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 18-2527 ___________ IZZADEEN SHIABDEEN JAINUL ABDEEN, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the United States Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA-1: A088-379-465) Immigration Judge: Hon. Annie S. Garcy ____________________________________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 23, 2019 Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE, and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: May 30, 2019) OPINION* * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. KRAUSE, Circuit Judge. Izzadeen Shiabdeen Jainul Abdeen, an alien from Sri Lanka, petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his second motion to reopen removal proceedings because he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. We will deny the petition. Background Abdeen previously applied for, but was not granted, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) on the basis that he endured mistreatment for supporting the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress. He subsequently filed a motion to reopen his proceedings but missed the filing deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (requiring motion to be filed “within 90 days of the . . . order of removal”). The BIA denied the motion, finding that the “changed country conditions” exception to the filing deadline, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), did not apply. Several years later, Abdeen filed a second motion to reopen, arguing that the changed-conditions exception now applied because multiple incidents of violence against Muslims had recently transpired in Sri Lanka. The BIA again denied his motion because, even assuming arguendo that conditions in Sri Lanka had changed, the BIA will only grant a motion to reopen if the alien establishes prima facie eligibility for relief, Khan v. Att’y Gen., 691 F.3d 488, 496 (3d Cir. 2012), which it concluded Abdeen had failed to do. This appeal followed. 2 Discussion1 Abdeen petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings, positing that (1) the BIA failed to address one of the arguments in his motion concerning the aggregated risk of persecution he would face in Sri Lanka as a Muslim and as a returned asylum-seeker; (2) the BIA failed to consider certain evidence he presented; (3) the BIA applied the wrong legal standard in determining whether he had established prima facie eligibility for relief; and (4) the BIA’s determination that he did not establish prima facie eligibility was simply incorrect. None of these arguments is persuasive. A. The BIA’s Failure to Consider Abdeen’s Aggregated-Risk Argument As the Government concedes, the BIA failed to expressly address Abdeen’s argument that he was entitled to asylum because the “cumulative effect,” Petitioner’s Br. 9, of being someone who fled Sri Lanka seeking asylum and being Muslim created a sufficient risk that he would face persecution upon return. But as the Government also points out, any error ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals