18-2147 Hassan v. Rosen BIA A076 245 797 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 22nd day of January, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 10 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 NASRIN HASSAN, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-2147 18 NAC 19 JEFFREY A. ROSEN, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent.* 22 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Lawrence Spivak, Esq., Jamaica, 26 N.Y. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 29 Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier, * Pursuant to Fed R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Jeffrey A. Rosen is automatically substituted for former Attorney General William P. Barr. 1 Assistant Director; Micah Engler, 2 Trial Attorney, Office of 3 Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, D.C. 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 Nasrin Hassan, a native and citizen of 12 Bangladesh, seeks review of a July 3, 2018, decision of the 13 BIA denying her motion to reopen. In re Hassan, No. A 076 14 245 797 (B.I.A. July 3, 2018). We assume the parties’ 15 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 16 We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of 17 discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 18 2006). When the agency considers relevant evidence of 19 country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, we review 20 its factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. 21 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 22 2008). 2 1 An alien seeking to reopen proceedings may file only one 2 motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the final 3 administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 4 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). However, the time and number limits 5 do not apply if the motion is filed in order to apply for 6 asylum “based on changed country conditions arising in the 7 country of nationality . . . ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals