16-8 Choudhury v. Barr BIA Van Wyke, IJ A070 651 046 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 21st day of November, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ OIES AHMED CHOUDHURY, Petitioner, v. 16-8 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Oies Ahmed Choudhury, pro se, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph A. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Melissa Neiman- Kelting, Assistant Director; Allison Frayer, 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 Oies Ahmed Choudhury, a citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of a December 7, 2015, decision of the BIA affirming an August 11, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his motion to reopen. In re Choudhury, No. A 070 651 046 (B.I.A. Dec. 7, 2015), aff’g No. A 070 651 046 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 11, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). When the agency considers relevant evidence of country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, we review its factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). 2 An alien seeking to reopen his or her removal proceedings may file one motion to reopen within 90 days of the final administrative order in those proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1). It is undisputed that Choudhury’s 2014 motion was untimely because he accepted an order of voluntary departure in 1998. The time limitation for filing a motion to reopen does not apply, however, if the basis of the motion is to apply for asylum “based on ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals