20-769 Salhan v. Garland BIA A206 036 016 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 10th day of March, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JATINDER SALHAN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-769 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: [VACANT], Assistant Attorney 27 General; Julie M. Iversen, Senior 28 Litigation Counsel, Jeffrey R. 29 Meyer, Attorney, Office of 1 Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, DC. 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Jatinder Salhan, a native and citizen of 9 India, seeks review of a February 5, 2020, decision of the 10 BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Jatinder Salhan, No. 11 A 206 036 016 (B.I.A. Feb. 5, 2020). We assume the parties’ 12 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 13 In lieu of filing a brief, the Government moves for 14 summary denial of Salhan’s petition for review. Rather than 15 determine if the petition is frivolous as required for summary 16 denial, see Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 17 (2d Cir. 1995), we 17 construe the Government’s motion as its brief and deny the 18 petition on the merits. 19 We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of 20 discretion and the BIA’s determination of country conditions 21 for substantial evidence. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 22 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). In his motion to reopen, 23 Salhan asserted that Congress Party members and 2 1 Bharatiya Janata Party (“BJP”) workers went to his family’s 2 home in India to learn his whereabouts and they beat his 3 father on account of Salhan’s affiliation with the Akali Dal 4 Mann Party. He documented this claim with his own written 5 statement, an affidavit from his uncle, and …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals