Hossain v. Sessions

16-4094 Hossain v. Sessions BIA A200 815 894 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 10th day of January, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MON JUR HOSSAIN, AKA RASSEL 14 BHUIYAN, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 16-4094 18 NAC 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New 25 York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Carl McIntyre, 29 Assistant Director; Brooke M. 30 Maurer, Trial Attorney, Office of 31 Immigration Litigation, United 32 States Department of Justice, 33 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Mon Jur Hossain, a native and citizen of 6 Bangladesh, seeks review of a November 10, 2016, decision of 7 the BIA denying Hossain’s motion to reopen his removal 8 proceedings. In re Mon Jur Hossain, No. A200 815 894 (B.I.A. 9 Nov. 10, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 10 underlying facts and procedural history of this case. 11 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen “for 12 abuse of discretion.” Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 13 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the BIA’s factual findings 14 regarding country conditions under the substantial evidence 15 standard. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 16 (2d Cir. 2008). Hossain concedes that his motion to 17 reopen, filed almost two years after the BIA’s decision 18 affirming his removal, is untimely under the 90-day 19 deadline for such motions. See 8 U.S.C. § 20 1229a(c)(7)(A)(C)(i). 21 However, he argues that the time limitation does not 22 apply because he sought reopening to re-apply for asylum, 23 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 2 1 Against Torture (“CAT”) based on new events in Bangladesh. 2 Specifically, he alleged that the Bangladeshi government 3 (led by the Awami League) filed false charges against him 4 because ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals