18-2634 Antipov v. Barr BIA A205 824 200 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 19th day of August, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MIKHAIL DIMITRIEVICH ANTIPOV, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-2634 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Aygul Charles, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Anthony P. 27 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 28 Linda Y. Cheng, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 1 United States Department of 2 Justice, Washington, DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 5 AND DECREED that this petition for review of a decision of 6 the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) is DENIED. 7 Petitioner Mikhail Dimitrievich Antipov, a native and 8 citizen of Russia, seeks review of an August 9, 2018, decision 9 of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal 10 proceedings. In re Mikhail Dimitrievich Antipov, No. A205 11 824 200 (B.I.A. Aug. 9, 2018). We assume the parties’ 12 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 13 We have reviewed the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen 14 for abuse of discretion and considered whether its conclusion 15 regarding country conditions is supported by substantial 16 evidence. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168– 17 69 (2d Cir. 2008). Antipov moved to reopen his removal 18 proceedings to reapply for asylum, asserting that he is a 19 priest of the True Russian Orthodox Church and that conditions 20 in Russia have worsened for him under Russia’s July 2016 21 “Yarovaya Law,” which criminalizes missionary activity in 22 certain circumstances. It is undisputed that Antipov’s 23 motion was untimely because he filed it more than a year after 24 the BIA’s 2017 decision affirming his removal order. See 8 2 1 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). 2 However, the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen 3 does not apply if reopening is sought to apply for asylum and 4 the motion “is based ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals