18-1179 Thaqi v. Barr BIA A076 993 946/947/948/949 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 17th day of August, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MIRADIJE THAQI, AKA MICHELA 14 MARIA ANNA NICORA, ANTON THAQI, 15 AKA LUCAS PETER RIEDER, D.R.T., 16 D.O.T., 17 Petitioners, 18 19 v. 18-1179 20 NAC 21 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 22 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 23 Respondent. 24 _____________________________________ 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Marotta, Vernon, NJ. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 29 Attorney General; Jessica E. 30 Burns, Claire L. Workman, Senior 31 Litigation Counsel, Office of 32 Immigration Litigation, United 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioners Miradije Thaqi, Anton Thaqi, D.R.T., and 9 D.O.T., natives of the former Yugoslavia and citizens of 10 Kosovo, seek review of an April 6, 2018, decision of the BIA 11 denying their motion to reopen. In re Miradije Thaqi, Anton 12 Thaqi, D.R.T., D.O.T., Nos. A076 993 946/947/948/949 (B.I.A. 13 Apr. 6, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 14 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). In their motion to reopen, Petitioners asserted that 18 conditions for Catholics had worsened in Kosovo due to a rise 19 in Islamic extremism, and that these changed conditions 20 excused the untimeliness of their motion and demonstrated 21 their prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of 22 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 2 1 based on their Catholic faith. 2 It is undisputed that Petitioners’ 2017 motion was 3 untimely because it was filed 14 years after their removal 4 order became final in 2003. See 8 U.S.C. 5 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is, 6 however, an exception to the time limits if the movant seeks 7 asylum and the motion ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals