NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 18-3832 ______________ WARNKULA SOORIYA AUGUSTINE FERNANDO, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of The Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A070-650-606) Immigration Judge: Eugene Pugliese ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) October 3, 2019 ______________ Before: SHWARTZ, SCIRICA, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. (Filed: October 8, 2019) ______________ OPINION ______________ SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge. This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. Warnkula Sooriya Augustine Fernando petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen. Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion, we will deny the petition. I Fernando is a native and citizen of Sri Lanka who entered the United States without valid entry documents in 1990. He requested asylum, claiming that he was “an active member” of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam who feared being “arrested or killed” by the Sri Lankan government. AR 1140. Fernando’s application was denied and referred to an immigration judge (“IJ”). The Immigration and Naturalization Service charged Fernando with removability, which he conceded. During his 1998 removal proceedings, Fernando sought asylum and withholding of removal and claimed that, as “a Tamil male from Sri Lanka, [he] belong[ed] to a minority ethnic group that has been discriminated against by the Sri Lankan government since 1948.” AR 1120. Unlike his first asylum application, his second did not assert membership in the Liberation Tigers. The IJ denied his application, citing “credibility problems,” including his conflicting asylum applications. AR 842. Fernando appealed, challenging the IJ’s credibility determination, and the BIA dismissed the appeal. We denied his petition for review, concluding, among other things, that there was substantial evidence to support the adverse credibility determination. Fernando v. Att’y Gen., 181 F. App’x 196, 198 (3d Cir. 2006). Fernando then filed motions to reopen in 2006, 2007, 2017, and 2018, each of which the BIA denied. In his latest motion, Fernando claimed that there were two 2 “material change[s] in country conditions” warranting reopening of his immigration proceedings: (1) failed asylum seekers would now be “subjected to torture” upon return to Sri Lanka and (2) Tamils would now suffer persecution “on account of their ethnicity alone.” AR 25-26. The BIA denied the motion because Fernando’s supporting documents did not reflect the two alleged changes. Fernando petitions for review. II1 Generally, an alien may file only one motion to reopen “within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). An alien can file an otherwise time- or number-barred motion if he demonstrates “changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality” from the time of his merits hearing to the time of his latest reopening hearing. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Liem v. Att’y Gen., 921 F.3d 388, 395 (3d Cir. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals