NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued July 10, 2019 Decided July 22, 2019 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge No. 18-1229 Petition for Review of an Or- ASAD UMRANI, der of the Board of Immigra- Petitioner, tion Appeals. v. No. A072 695 307 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. Order Asad Umrani, a 44-year-old citizen of Malawi whose mother brought him to the United States when he was 15, filed an untimely motion to reopen his removal proceed- ings. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied the motion because Umrani has not shown that he qualifies for an exception to the filing deadline and has not demonstrated that exceptional circumstances justified an exercise of the Board’s discretion to reopen his case sua sponte. Umrani’s mother, Kulsum, brought him to the United States from Malawi in Sep- tember 1990 on a six-month tourist visa, and they overstayed. In 1995 Kulsum applied No. 18-1229 Page 2 for asylum on behalf of herself and Umrani (20 at the time), stating that she feared polit- ical persecution if she returned to Malawi. An immigration judge denied the application in 1996 and granted voluntary departure with an alternate order of removal that would take effect if Kulsum and Umrani did not timely depart. The Board upheld the IJ’s deci- sion in 2001. Kulsum and Umrani were given until 2003 to leave for Malawi. They did not leave. After graduating from DePaul University in 2000, Umrani began working for Umrani Aquatic Ltd., a family business. The company soon filed an Appli- cation for Employment Certification, which, if granted, would have allowed Umrani to apply for permanent residence. See 8 C.F.R. §204.5(k)(1), (4). But the Department of La- bor denied certification because it found that the company had not made the job availa- ble to anyone other than Umrani. Umrani still did not leave. In 2007 he and his mother filed a joint motion to reopen their asylum case in light of a grant of asylum to Umrani’s father, a Pakistani citizen. The Board remanded the case for further proceedings. An IJ granted Kulsum’s applica- tion in light of her husband’s new status. Her case then was severed from Umrani’s, which in turn was consolidated with that of his wife, who also applied for asylum. Umrani’s attorney did not file an application to adjust Umrani’s status and instead attempted to relitigate his asylum claim based on conditions in Pakistan, which is not Umrani’s country. The IJ explained that the 1996 asylum decision was final and that the Board had reopened Umrani’s case to consider only whether he could adjust his status based on a family member’s approved application for asylum. But Umrani was ineligi- ble for that relief because he is no longer a minor and his wife had not been granted asy- ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals