11-3980 Radoncic v. Barr BIA A073 033 467 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 9th day of May, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 HAJRAN RADONCIC, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 11-3980 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Charles Christophe, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Briena L. 27 Strippoli, Senior Litigation 28 Counsel; Matthew B. George, Trial 29 Attorney, Office of Immigration 30 Litigation, United States 31 Department of Justice, Washington, 32 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 Hajran Radoncic, a native of the former 6 Yugoslavia and citizen of Montenegro, seeks review of a 7 September 13, 2011, decision of the BIA denying his motion to 8 reopen his removal proceedings. In re Hajran Radoncic, No. 9 A 073 033 467 (B.I.A. Sept. 13, 2011). We assume the parties’ 10 familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history in 11 this case, and issues on appeal. 12 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 13 abuse of discretion but review any finding regarding changed 14 country conditions for substantial evidence. See Jian Hui 15 Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). 16 Radoncic does not dispute that his motion to reopen filed in 17 2011 was untimely because the BIA affirmed his removal order 18 in 2002. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (90-day deadline 19 for filing motion to reopen); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (same). 20 However, the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen 21 does not apply if reopening is sought to apply for asylum and 22 the motion is “based on changed country conditions arising in 23 the country of nationality or the country to which removal 2 1 has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not 2 available and would not have ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals