18-1696 Kacaj v. Barr BIA A095 474 444 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 3rd day of March, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PETER W. HALL, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 EJLL KACAJ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-1696 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: James A. Lombardi, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 26 General; John S. Hogan, Assistant 27 Director; Laura Maroldy, Trial 28 Attorney, Office of Immigration 29 Litigation, United States 30 Department of Justice, Washington, 31 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 Ejll Kacaj, a native and citizen of Albania, 6 seeks review of a May 8, 2018 decision of the BIA denying his 7 motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Ejll Kacaj, 8 No. A095 474 444 (B.I.A. May 8, 2018). We assume the parties’ 9 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 10 in this case. 11 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 12 abuse of discretion and its country conditions determination 13 for substantial evidence. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 14 F.3d 138, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). An alien seeking to reopen 15 may file one motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the 16 final administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), 17 (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). It is undisputed that 18 Kacaj’s 2017 motion to reopen was number-barred and untimely 19 because it was his second motion to reopen and it was filed 20 more than 12 years after his 2004 order of removal. However, 21 the time and number limitations for filing a motion to reopen 22 do not apply if the motion is filed in order to apply for 2 1 asylum “based on changed country conditions arising in the 2 country of nationality or the country to which removal has 3 been ordered, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals