17-138 Ram v. Sessions BIA A200 239 615 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 August, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ DAWINDER RAM, Petitioner, v. 17-138 NAC JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Fremont, CA. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Justin R. Markel, Senior Litigation Counsel; Benjamin Zeitlin, 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 Dawinder Ram, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a December 23, 2016 decision of the BIA denying his August 19, 2016 motion to reopen. In re Dawinder Ram, No. A200 239 615 (B.I.A. Dec. 23, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We have reviewed the BIA’s denial of Ram’s motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, and its factual findings regarding country conditions under the substantial evidence standard. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). In his motion, Ram asserted that his family had informed him that his life was in danger in India given his past political activity, and that police had raided his house and arrested and beat his father in an effort to find Ram. 2 It is undisputed that Ram’s 2016 motion to reopen was untimely because his removal order became final in 2014. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (providing 90-day filing period for motions to reopen); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)(same). This time limitation does not apply if the motion is filed to apply for asylum “based on changed country conditions” since the time of the original hearing. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). The BIA did not err in finding Ram’s evidence insufficient to establish a material change in conditions in India, i.e., increased police violence, corruption, and harassment of Ram’s family. Contrary to Ram’s contention, the BIA expressly considered his country conditions evidence, and reasonably concluded that police violence and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals