18-3388 Hadj Djelloul v. Garland BIA A076 101 378 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 14th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 MEHDI HADJ DJELLOUL, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-3388 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 1 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Alexis Ann Dutt, Esq., Karam Law, 25 Bloomington, MN. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Jessica E. Burns, Senior 28 Litigation Counsel; Claire L. 29 Workman, Senior Litigation 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 Counsel, Office of Immigration 2 Litigation, United States 3 Department of Justice, Washington, 4 DC. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Mehdi Hadj Djelloul, a native and citizen of 11 Algeria, seeks review of an October 11, 2018 decision of the 12 BIA, denying his third motion to reopen. In re Mehdi Hadj 13 Djelloul, No. A076 101 378 (B.I.A. Oct. 11, 2018). We assume 14 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 15 procedural history. 16 We review constitutional claims and questions of law de 17 novo. See Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 2009). 18 We review Hadj Djelloul’s motions to reopen for abuse of 19 discretion, and we review the BIA and IJ’s country condition 20 findings under the substantial evidence standard. See Jian 21 Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). 22 In his motion to reopen, Hadj Djelloul asserted that he 23 converted to Catholicism in the United States and feared 24 persecution in Algeria on account of his religion. 2 1 It is undisputed that, absent an applicable exception, 2 Hadj Djelloul’s 2018 motion to reopen was untimely and number- 3 barred because it was his third motion to reopen and was filed 4 more than 15 years after his removal order …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals