19-3140 Kuka v. Garland BIA A078 690 281/282 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 for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 24th day of August, two thousand 4 twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 GUIDO CALABRESI, 10 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 SHPETIM KUKA, LUZIME KUKA, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-3140 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 1 FOR PETITIONER: Karin Anderson Ponzer, Neighbors Link 2 Community Law Practice, Ossining, NY. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; 5 Kiley Kane, Senior Litigation Counsel; Robbin 6 K. Blaya, Trial Attorney, Office of 7 Immigration Litigation, United States 8 Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 10 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 11 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 12 Petitioners Shpetim and Luzime Kuka, natives and citizens of Albania, seek 13 review of a September 4, 2019 decision of the BIA denying their motion to reopen 14 their immigration proceedings. In re Shpetim Kuka, No. A 078 690 281/282 (B.I.A. 15 Sept. 4, 2019). We review the BIA’s decision to deny the Kukas’ motion for abuse 16 of discretion, and we review the BIA’s findings of fact for substantial 17 evidence. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). We 18 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19 It is undisputed that the Kukas’s motion to reopen was number-barred and 20 untimely because it was their fifth motion to reopen, filed almost 13 years after 21 their 2006 removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. 22 § 1003.2(c)(2). The Kukas nevertheless argue that their 2019 motion to reopen 2 1 was proper because Luzime had become permanently disabled and the country 2 conditions in Albania had materially changed in the interim. But while it is true 3 that § 1229a(c)(7) permits petitioners to bring otherwise time- and number-barred 4 motions to reopen “based on changed country conditions,” the statute also 5 requires petitioners to present evidence of those changed conditions …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals