17-2792 Starchikova v. Barr BIA A095 476 785/786/788 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 12th day of July, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YELENA STARCHIKOVA, AZAD 14 CHIGATEAV, AZIZA CHIGATAYEVA, 15 Petitioners, 16 17 v. 17-2792 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONERS: Alexander J. Segal, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Anthony P. 28 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 29 Ilana J. Snyder, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 31 United States Department of 32 Justice, Washington, 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 Petitioners Yelena Starchikova, Azad Chigateav, natives 6 of the Soviet Union and citizens of Uzbekistan, and Aziza 7 Chigatayeva, a native and citizen of Uzbekistan, seek review 8 of an August 25, 2017 decision of the BIA denying their motion 9 to reopen their removal proceedings. In re Yelena 10 Starchikova, Azad Chigateav, Aziza Chigatayeva, Nos. A 095 11 476 785/786/788 (B.I.A. Aug. 25, 2017). We assume the 12 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 13 history in this case. 14 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 15 abuse of discretion and its country conditions 16 determination for substantial evidence. See Jian Hui Shao 17 v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). A motion 18 to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days after the 19 date on which the final administrative decision was 20 rendered. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). It is undisputed 21 that the petitioners’ 2017 motion to reopen was untimely 22 because it was filed more than 12 years after their removal 2 1 order. See id. The time limitation for filing a motion to 2 reopen does not apply, however, if reopening is sought to 3 apply for asylum “based on changed country conditions 4 arising in the country ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals