12‐4416
Bhullar v. Holder
BIA
A097 527 900
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 for the Second
2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 12th day of December, two thousand
4 thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
8 Chief Judge,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 GURJEET BHULLAR,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 12‐4416
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Sandro S. Paterno, Michael Kimmelman, PC,
25 New York, NY.
1
2 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General;
3 Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director; Joseph A.
4 O’Connell, Attorney, Office of Immigration
5 Litigation, United States Department of Justice,
6 Washington, D.C.
7
8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of
9 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
10 AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.
11 Petitioner Gurjeet Bhullar, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a
12 September 28, 2012 decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal
13 proceedings. In re Gurjeet Bhullar, No. A097 527 900 (B.I.A. Sept. 28, 2012). We
14 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
15 in this case.
16 Our review is limited to the BIA’s September 2012 order from which
17 Bhullar has filed a timely petition for review. We review the BIA’s decision for
18 abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (per
19 curiam). An alien seeking to reopen proceedings may file one motion to reopen
20 no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision
21 was rendered. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is
2
1 no dispute that Bhullar’s motion to reopen, filed in August 2012, was untimely
2 because the BIA issued a final order of removal in April 2010, and was number‐
3 barred because it was Bhullar’s second motion seeking reopening.
4 Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, as
5 Bhullar’s marriage and the filing of the I‐130 petition constituted changed
6 personal circumstances, not changed country conditions, as is required to excuse
7 the time and number limitations. See Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270,
8 273‐74 (2d Cir. 2006) (making clear that time and numerical limitations on
9 motions to reopen may not be suspended because of a “self‐induced change in
10 personal circumstances” that is “entirely of [the applicant’s] own making after
11 being ordered to leave the United States”); see also Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d
12 143, 155 (2d Cir. 2008).
13 Although Bhullar contends that the BIA failed to state why his evidence
14 was insufficient to warrant reopening, the only evidence Bhullar submitted with
15 his second motion was evidence of his marriage and the I‐130 petition. Given the
16 BIA’s discussion of Bhullar’s evidentiary submissions in its denial of his first
17 motion to reopen, the BIA’s treatment of the new evidence was not an abuse of
18 discretion, as proof that Bhullar had married his cousin did not remedy the
3
1 deficiencies in his evidence the BIA had previously identified, and did not
2 establish “changed conditions arising in” India. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).
3 Bhullar has not separately challenged the denial of reconsideration.
4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4