18-1956 Eldemerdash v. Barr BIA A061 905 354 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 9th day of September, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: SUSAN L. CARNEY, MICHAEL H. PARK, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ MOHAMED KHALED ELDEMERDASH, AKA MOHAMMED ELDEMERDASH, AKA MOHAMMED KHALED EL DEMERDASH, Petitioner, v. 18-1956 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Kareem El Nemr, Esq., Astoria, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Jessica E. Burns, Senior Litigation Counsel, Edward C. Durant, 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 Mohamed Khaled Eldemerdash, a native and citizen of Egypt, seeks review of a June 14, 2018 decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Mohamed Khaled Eldemerdash, No. 061 905 354 (B.I.A. June 14, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Because Eldemerdash timely petitioned for review only of the BIA’s June 2018 decision denying his motion to reopen, our review is limited to that decision, and we may not consider the agency’s underlying decision denying his petition to remove the conditions on his residence. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89-– 90 (2d Cir. 2001). We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). “A motion to reopen proceedings shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board that evidence sought to be offered is 2 material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Norani v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 292, 294 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[I]n reviewing the BIA’s determination of whether previously unavailable evidence supported [a] motion to reopen, we must inquire whether the evidence could have been presented at the hearing before the IJ.”). The BIA did not err in determining that Eldemerdash failed to establish that the evidence he submitted with his motion to reopen was previously ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals