17‐2460‐ag Tahir v. Barr 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 ASUMMARY 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 for the Second Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 3 City of New York, on the 15th day of October, two thousand nineteen. 4 5 PRESENT: GERARD E. LYNCH, 6 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 7 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 8 Circuit Judges. 9 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 10 MUHAMMAD AHTESHAM 11 TAHIR, 12 13 Petitioner, 14 15 v. No. 17‐2460‐ag 16 17 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 18 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 20 Respondent. 21 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1 FOR PETITIONER: AMY NUSSBAUM GELL, Gell & 2 Gell, New York, NY. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: ALISON MARIE IGOE, Senior 5 Counsel for National Security, 6 Office of Immigration 7 Litigation (Lyle D. Jentzer, 8 Senior Counsel for National 9 Security, Office of Immigration 10 Litigation, on the brief), for 11 Chad A. Readler, Acting 12 Assistant Attorney General, 13 United States Department of 14 Justice, Civil Division, 15 Washington, DC. 16 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 17 Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 18 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 19 Muhammad Ahtesham Tahir, a native of Iran and citizen of Pakistan, 20 petitions for review of an August 3, 2017 decision of the BIA denying Tahir’s 21 motion to reopen his removal proceedings. See In re Muhammad Ahtesham 22 Tahir, No. A088 185 601 (B.I.A. Aug. 3, 2017). Although it is undisputed that 23 Tahir’s motion to reopen was untimely because it was filed more than three years 24 after his removal order became final, Tahir nevertheless moved to reopen on the 2 1 ground that conditions for members of the media have worsened in Pakistan 2 since the Immigration Judge’s August 7, 2012 decision denying Tahir’s 3 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 4 Against Torture (CAT). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 5 facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to 6 explain our decision to deny the petition. 7 The applicable standards of review are well established. See Jian Hui 8 Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008); In re S‐Y‐G‐, 24 I. & N. Dec. 9 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007). “We review a BIA decision to deny reopening ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals