17-3693 Markaj v. Barr BIA A096 263 931 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 July, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 DENADA MARKAJ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-3693 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Erin O’Neil-Baker, Hartford 24 Legal Group, LLC, Hartford, CT. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 27 Attorney General; Leslie McKay, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel; 29 Madeline Henley, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 31 United States Department of 32 Justice, Washington, DC. 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 Denada Markaj, a native and citizen of 6 Albania, seeks review of a January 31, 2018 decision of the 7 BIA, denying her motion to reopen. In re Denada Markaj, No. 8 A096 263 931 (B.I.A. Jan. 31, 2018). We assume the parties’ 9 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 10 The applicable standards of review are well established. 11 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 12 2008). In her motion to reopen, Markaj argued that 13 conditions in Albania had materially changed for members of 14 both the Greek Orthodox church and a proposed social group of 15 unaccompanied women such that she was eligible for asylum. 16 It is undisputed that Markaj’s 2017 motion to reopen was 17 untimely filed more than eight years after her removal order 18 became final in 2009. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 19 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). However, the time limitation does 20 not apply if reopening is sought to apply for asylum and the 21 motion “is based on changed country conditions arising in the 22 country of nationality or the country to which removal has 2 1 been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not 2 available and would not have been discovered or presented at 3 the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals