17-1228 Akhtar v. Whitaker BIA A098 929 525 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 20th day of December, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, REENA RAGGI, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ARFAN AKHTAR, Petitioner, v. 17-1228 NAC MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Amy N. Gell, Gell & Gell, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel; Erik R. Quick, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Arfan Akhtar, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks review of a March 27, 2017, decision of the BIA denying his untimely motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Arfan Akhtar, No. A098 929 525 (B.I.A. Mar. 27, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and related country conditions findings for substantial evidence. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). An alien may move to reopen removal proceedings no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is no dispute that Akhtar’s 2016 motion was untimely because his removal order became final in 2014. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B). But the time limitation does not apply to a motion to reopen if it is 2 filed to apply for asylum “based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality . . . if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Even where there has been a material change in country conditions, the BIA may nevertheless deny reopening where a movant fails to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief from removal. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988). To demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief from removal, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals