11-4466
Bah v. Holder
BIA
A097 847 391
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 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 United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 3rd day of October, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 RALPH K. WINTER,
9 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 MAMADOU ALIOU BAH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-4466
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL,
19 Respondent.
20
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Theodore Vialet, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General, Civil Division;
27 Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant
28 Director; Robbin K. Blaya, Trial
29 Attorney, Office of Immigration
30 Litigation, United States Department
31 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
32
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 Mamadou Aliou Bah, a native and citizen of Guinea,
6 seeks review of the September 22, 2011, order of the BIA
7 denying his motion to reconsider. In re Mamadou Aliou Bah,
8 No. A097 847 391 (B.I.A. Sept. 22, 2011). We assume the
9 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
10 procedural history of the case.
11 As Bah has timely petitioned for review of only the
12 BIA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration, we are
13 precluded from considering the merits of the underlying
14 motion to reopen his removal proceedings. See Jin Ming Liu
15 v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
16 We have reviewed the denial of Bah’s motion to reconsider
17 for abuse of discretion. See id. A motion to reconsider
18 must “specify errors of fact or law in the [challenged BIA
19 decision] and [] be supported by pertinent authority.” 8
20 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen
21 Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir.
22 2001).
2
1 Bah reiterates the argument from his motion to
2 reconsider, that the BIA failed to explicitly consider his
3 argument that he will be persecuted on account of his Fulani
4 ethnicity. While, as the BIA found, it had necessarily
5 rejected that argument in finding his related claim of
6 persecution based on political opinion to be unsupported by
7 the record, the BIA also corrected any potential error by
8 explicitly addressing Bah’s ethnic persecution claim in
9 denying reconsideration. The BIA reasonably found that Bah
10 had failed to demonstrate a material change in conditions
11 based on his Fulani ethnicity because: (1) the only
12 documented ethnic persecution came at the hands of
13 government officials that have since been ousted by Bah’s
14 own political party; and (2) his evidence, which included
15 unauthenticated and unsworn documents and affidavits not
16 based on personal knowledge, did not overcome or rebut the
17 underlying adverse credibility determination. See Jian Hui
18 Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008) (reviewing
19 BIA’s consideration of country condition evidence in motion
20 to reopen for substantial evidence); Qin Wen Zheng v.
21 Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 147-48 (2d Cir. 2007) (noting that
22 the BIA may refuse to credit evidence submitted in a motion
3
1 to reopen because of an adverse credibility determination in
2 an underlying proceeding). Accordingly, because Bah failed
3 to identify an error of law or fact in the BIA’s denial of
4 this third motion to reopen, the BIA did not abuse its
5 discretion in denying his motion to reconsider. See
6 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen
7 Zhao, 265 F.3d at 90.
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 DENIED.
10 FOR THE COURT:
11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
12
4