17-1249 Viknesrajah v. Barr BIA A095 665 546 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 April, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 NADARAJAH VIKNESRAJAH, AKA MARIO 14 D’AMICO, AKA VIKNESRAJAH 15 NADARAJAH, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 17-1249 19 NAC 20 21 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 22 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 23 Respondent. 24 _____________________________________ 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, 27 New York, NY. 28 29 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunter, Assistant 30 Attorney General; Daniel I. 31 Smulow, Senior Counsel for 32 National Security Unit; Alison 1 Marie Igoe, Senior Counsel for 2 National Security Unit, Office of 3 Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, DC. 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Nadarajah Viknesrajah, a native and citizen 12 of Sri Lanka, seeks review of March 28, 2017, decision of the 13 BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Nadarajah 14 Viknesrajah, No. A095 665 546 (B.I.A. Mar. 28, 2017). We 15 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 16 procedural history in this case. 17 We review the BIA’s denial of Viknesrajah’s motion to 18 reopen for abuse of discretion and consider whether its 19 conclusion regarding changed country conditions is supported 20 by substantial evidence. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 21 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). 22 It is undisputed that Viknesrajah’s 2016 motion to 23 reopen was untimely as it was filed almost three years 24 after the BIA’s last decision in his case. See 8 U.S.C. 2 1 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The time 2 limitation does not apply if reopening is sought to apply 3 for asylum (or withholding of removal and protection under 4 the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)) and the motion “is 5 based on changed country conditions arising in the country 6 of nationality or the country to which removal has been 7 ordered, if such evidence is ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals