17-4119 Bajwa v. Barr BIA A073 674 641 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 15th day of July, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ JASPAL BAJWA, Petitioner, v. 17-4119 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Anas J. Ahmed, Pannun The Firm, P.C., Jackson Heights, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Melissa Neiman- Kelting, Assistant Director; Melissa K. Lott, 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 Jaspal Bajwa, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a December 1, 2017, decision of the BIA, denying his motion to reopen. In re Jaspal Bajwa, No. A073 674 641 (B.I.A. Dec. 1, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. The applicable standards of review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). In his motion to reopen, Bajwa asserted that the time and number limitations on his motion to reopen to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) should be excused because conditions for members of the All India Sikh Students Federation (“AISSF”) in India had worsened and his former counsel had been ineffective. It is undisputed that, unless an exception to the time and number limitations applies, Bajwa’s 2017 motion to reopen 2 was untimely and number barred because this third motion to reopen was filed more than 19 years after his deportation order became final in 1997, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and it was filed more than 17 years after the June 1999 deadline for seeking reopening after CAT relief became available, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(b)(2)(i). As discussed below, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as time and number barred because no exceptions applied. Changed Country Conditions The time and number limitations for filing a motion to reopen asylum proceedings do ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals