17-1462 Foulah v. Barr BIA Morace, IJ A099 938 822 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 5th day of March, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: BARRINGTON D. PARKER, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ MATHILDE GENEVIEVE FOULAH, Petitioner, v. 17-1462 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ For Petitioner: RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, MD. For Respondent: MARGOT P. KNIFFIN, Trial Attorney (Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Jessica A. Dawgert, Senior Litigation Counsel, on the brief), 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 Mathilde Genevieve Foulah, a native and citizen of Guinea, seeks review of an April 6, 2017 decision of the BIA affirming an October 8, 2014 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Foulah’s motion to reopen. In re Mathilde Genevieve Foulah, No. A 099 938 822 (BIA Apr. 6, 2017), aff’g No. A 099 938 822 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 8, 2014). Foulah applied for asylum and related relief in 2007 based on the female genital mutilation (“FGM”) she endured. The IJ deemed her asylum application untimely because she filed it more than one year after her arrival in the United States in 2004. Nevertheless, the IJ granted Foulah withholding of removal. Over six years later, in 2014, Foulah moved to reopen to apply for asylum based on changed country conditions and caselaw. It is from the denial of that motion to reopen that Foulah now appeals. 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 agency’s denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion but review any finding regarding changed country conditions for substantial evidence. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). An alien seeking to reopen proceedings may file only one motion to reopen no later than ninety ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals