18-2671 Bin Rehman v. Wilkinson BIA A098 424 207/208 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 11th day of February, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MALIK NAVEED BIN REHMAN, ZAHIDA 14 ALTAF, 15 Petitioners, 16 17 v. 18-2671 18 NAC 19 ROBERT M. WILKINSON, ACTING 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 1 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONERS: Glenn L. Formica, New Haven, CT. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, 28 Assistant Director; Russell J.E. 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Robert M. Wilkinson is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel, 2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, DC. 5 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 Petitioners Malik Naveed Bin Rehman and Zahida Altaf, 11 natives and citizens of Pakistan, seek review of an August 12 29, 2018, decision of the BIA, denying their motion to reopen. 13 In re Malik Naveed Bin Rehman, Zahida Altaf, Nos. A098 424 14 207/208 (B.I.A. Aug. 29, 2018). We assume the parties’ 15 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 16 The applicable standards of review are well established. 17 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 18 2008). In their motion to reopen, Petitioners argued that, 19 as asserted in their underlying asylum application, they 20 continue to fear that Altaf’s family will harm them because 21 the family disapproved of their marriage due to Bin Rehman’s 22 caste. They argued that honor killings were increasing in 23 Pakistan and that their former counsel was ineffective 24 because he failed to provide the immigration judge (“IJ”) 25 evidence they had submitted in support of their Canadian 2 1 asylum application, letters from their relatives, or evidence 2 of honor killings in Pakistan. 3 It is undisputed that Petitioners’ 2018 motion was 4 untimely ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals