19-1487 Kuncoro v. Garland BIA A099 073 432 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 7th day of June, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ BAMBANG KUNCORO, Petitioner, v. 19-1487 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Margaret W. Wong, Margaret Wong & Associates, Cleveland, OH. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Song Park, Acting Assistant Director; Shahrzad Baghai, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) is DENIED. Petitioner Bambang Kuncoro, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of an April 25, 2019, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Bambang Kuncoro, No. A099 073 432 (B.I.A. Apr. 25, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and considered whether its conclusion regarding country conditions is supported by substantial evidence. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168– 69 (2d Cir. 2008). Kuncoro moved to reopen his removal proceedings to reapply for asylum, asserting that the persecution of Christians in Indonesia had increased since his hearing before an immigration judge (“IJ”) in 2009. It is undisputed that Kuncoro’s motion was untimely because he filed it more than seven years after the BIA’s 2010 decision 2 affirming his removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). However, the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen does not apply if reopening is sought to apply for asylum and the motion “is based on changed country conditions in the country of nationality . . . , if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Kuncoro’s new evidence did not establish a material change in conditions in Indonesia. Kuncoro submitted three exhibits to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals