20-290 Hamida v. Garland BIA A076 134 193 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 9th day of November, two thousand twenty- 5 one. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 MOUMOUNI HAMIDA, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-290 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Moumouni Hamida, pro se, New 25 York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 28 Assistant Attorney General; Derek 29 C. Julius, Assistant Director; 1 Anthony O. Pottinger, Trial 2 Attorney, Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 DC. 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Moumouni Hamida, a native and citizen of 12 Niger, seeks review of a December 31, 2019, decision of the 13 BIA, denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In 14 re Moumouni Hamida, No. A076 134 193 (B.I.A. Dec. 31, 2019). 15 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 16 and procedural history. 17 While we review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen 18 for abuse of discretion, we review the agency’s findings of 19 fact regarding changed country conditions for substantial 20 evidence. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 21 (2d Cir. 2008). In his motion to reopen, Hamida asserted both 22 that he feared political persecution in Niger and that he and 23 his U.S. citizen children would be unable to access required 24 medical treatment in that country. 2 1 It is undisputed that Hamida’s 2019 motion was time 2 barred because he filed it more than 17 years after his 3 removal order became final in 2002. See 8 U.S.C. 4 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Although the 5 time limit does not apply if reopening is sought to apply for 6 asylum “based on changed country conditions arising in the 7 country of nationality or the country to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals