09-4829-ag
Ahmed v. Holder
BIA
Morace, IJ
A073 669 008
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 4th day of February, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 ROBERT D. SACK,
10 GERARD E. LYNCH,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _______________________________________
13
14 SOHEL AHMED,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 09-4829-ag
18 NAC
19
20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 _______________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONERS: Usman B. Ahmad, Long Island City,
26 New York.
27
28 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
29 General; James E. Grimes, Senior
30 Litigation Counsel; Lindsay B.
1 Glauner, Trial Attorney, Office of
2 Immigration Litigation, Civil
3 Division, United States Department
4 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
4 review is DENIED.
5 Sohel Ahmed (“Ahmed”), a native and citizen of
6 Bangladesh, seeks review of an October 20, 2009, order of
7 the BIA, affirming the January 10, 2008, decision of
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Philip L. Morace, denying Ahmed’s
9 motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Ahmed, No.
10 A073 669 008 (B.I.A. Oct. 20, 2009), aff’g No. A073 669 008
11 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 10, 2008). We assume the
12 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
13 procedural history of the case.
14 We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse
15 of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d
16 Cir. 2006). When the BIA, as it did here, “adopts the
17 decision of the IJ and merely supplements the IJ’s decision
18 . . . we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by
19 the BIA.” See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d
20 Cir. 2005).
2
1 An alien who has been ordered removed may file one
2 motion to reopen, but must do so within ninety days of the
3 final administrative decision. 8 U.S.C.
4 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). Ahmed concedes that his October 2007
5 motion to reopen, filed more than eleven years after the
6 entry of his August 1996 final order of removal, was
7 untimely. See id.; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). To overcome
8 this limitation, Ahmed was required to demonstrate changed
9 country conditions material to his asylum application.
10 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). The agency concluded that he
11 failed to do so. We review the agency’s factual findings
12 regarding changed conditions for substantial evidence. Jian
13 Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008).
14 The IJ reasonably found that Ahmed’s evidence – a
15 letter from his brother recounting abuse family members had
16 suffered due to their involvement in the Awami League
17 political party, a personal affidavit reiterating the
18 factual allegations contained in the letter, and background
19 evidence discussing country conditions in Bangladesh – did
20 not demonstrate a change in country conditions material to
21 Ahmed’s claim for relief. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of
22 Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (explaining that
3
1 the weight afforded certain evidence is “largely within the
2 discretion of the IJ” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
3 As the agency found, the letter and affidavit have only
4 minimal relevance because the members of Ahmed’s family who
5 were attacked are not similarly situated to Ahmed, who has
6 not lived, or been politically active, in Bangladesh since
7 1993. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 160-61 (upholding
8 BIA’s conclusion that reports detailing forced sterilization
9 of individuals not similarly situated to petitioner were
10 immaterial). Furthermore, the three-paragraph letter in
11 question contained only the barest allegation that Ahmed
12 would face persecution if he returned to Bangladesh.
13 Therefore, the BIA acted within its discretion when it chose
14 “what seem[ed] to [it] to be the most reasonable inference”
15 from the evidence presented. Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d
16 160, 167 (2d Cir. 2007), quoting Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S.
17 645, 653 (1946).1 As a result, the agency reasonably
18 determined that Ahmed failed to establish a material change
1
In his brief to this Court, Ahmed does not rely on
the newspaper articles and other background material he
had submitted to the IJ. He has thus abandoned any claim
that these documents establish a material change in
condition in Bangladesh. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales,
426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that issues
not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered
waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal).
4
1 in country conditions and properly denied his motion to
2 reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (c)(3)(ii); Jian Hui
3 Shao, 546 F.3d at 161-62. Accordingly, we need not reach
4 Ahmed’s argument that he is prima facie eligible for relief.
5 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R.
6 § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).2
7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
8 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
9 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
10 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
11 this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
12 FOR THE COURT:
13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
14
15
2
Shortly after the IJ’s decision denying Ahmed’s
motion to reopen, the Awami League won an overwhelming
victory in national elections in Bangladesh. U.S. Dep’t
of State, 2009 Human Rights Report: Bangladesh (Mar. 11,
2010). Ahmed’s claim that he would be persecuted because
of his family’s association with that party thus rings
particularly hollow under present conditions.
5