18-2410 Kabir v. Barr BIA A070 582 946 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 22nd day of April, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 8 Chief Judge, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 MICHAEL H. PARK, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 MOHAMMED KABIR, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-2410 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Salim Sheikh, Esq., New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Mary Jane Candaux, 28 Assistant Director; Stephanie E. 29 Beckett, Trial Attorney, Office of 1 Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, DC. 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Mohammed Kabir, a native and citizen of 9 Bangladesh, seeks review of a July 16, 2018 decision of the 10 BIA denying his motion to reopen as untimely. In re Mohammed 11 Kabir, No. A 070 582 946 (B.I.A. July 16, 2018). We assume 12 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 13 procedural history in this case. 14 We review the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen for 15 abuse of discretion but review any finding regarding changed 16 country conditions for substantial evidence. Jian Hui Shao 17 v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). An alien 18 seeking to reopen proceedings may file only one motion to 19 reopen no later than 90 days after the date on which 20 the final administrative decision was rendered. 8 U.S.C. 21 § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Kabir’s 22 January 2018 motion to reopen was untimely filed more than 17 2 1 years after his 2000 removal order. The 90-day time 2 limitation does not apply if reopening is sought to apply for 3 asylum “based on changed country conditions arising in the 4 country of nationality or the country to which removal has 5 been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not 6 available and would not have been discovered ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals