Mitaj v. Garland

20-1629 Mitaj v. Garland BIA A206 189 278 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 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 20th day of July, two thousand twenty-two. PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, BETH ROBINSON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ DANIEL MITAJ, Petitioner, v. No. 20-1629 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Michael P. DiRaimondo, Marialaina L. Masi, Stacy A. Huber, DiRaimondo & Masi, P.C., Bohemia, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation; Sarai M. Aldana, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Daniel Mitaj, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of the BIA’s May 7, 2020 decision denying, as untimely, his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Daniel Mitaj, No. A206 189 278 (B.I.A. May 7, 2020). In support of his motion before the BIA, Mitaj submitted a report by Dr. Bernd Fischer, a purported expert on Albania, stating that an individual who previously attacked Mitaj in revenge for reporting a robbery to police would continue to target him, that the two primary political parties in Albania are a threat to members of the Christian Democracy Party to which Mitaj belongs, and that there has been a rise in Islamic fundamentalism. Before this Court, Mitaj argues 2 primarily that Dr. Fischer’s report constituted material evidence of changed country conditions in Albania, such that the BIA abused its discretion by finding the report insufficient to excuse Mitaj’s otherwise-untimely filing of his motion. In the alternative, he argues that the BIA violated due process by failing to adequately consider Dr. Fischer’s report. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). Because motions to reopen are generally disfavored in light of the “strong public interest in bringing litigation to a close as promptly as is consistent with the interest in giving the adversaries a fair opportunity to develop and present their respective cases,” INS v. Abudu, …

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