Alle v. Holder

12-2970 Alle v. Holder BIA A074 776 108 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 15th day of January, two thousand fourteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 NEIMA ABDILLAHI ALLE, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 12-2970 17 NAC 18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _______________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Genet Getachew, Brooklyn, New York. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Jennifer L. 27 Lightbody, Assistant Director; 28 Channah F. Norman, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of Justice, 31 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 Neima Abdillahi Alle, a native and citizen of Somalia, 6 seeks review of a June 19, 2012, decision of the BIA denying 7 her motion to reopen. In re Neima Abdillahi Alle, No. A074 8 776 108 (B.I.A. June 19, 2012). We assume the parties’ 9 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 10 of this case. 11 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 12 abuse of discretion, mindful of the Supreme Court’s 13 admonition that such motions are “disfavored.” Ali v. 14 Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting INS v. 15 Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992)). When the BIA considers 16 relevant evidence of country conditions in evaluating a 17 motion to reopen, we review the BIA’s factual findings under 18 the substantial evidence standard. See Jian Hui Shao v. 19 Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). 20 An alien must file a motion to reopen within 90 days of 21 the agency’s final administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. 22 § 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Although Alle’s 2 1 motion was indisputably untimely because it was filed more 2 than nine years after the agency’s final order of removal, 3 see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), there is no time 4 limitation for filing a motion to reopen if it is “based on 5 changed country conditions arising in the country of 6 nationality or the country to which removal has been 7 ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available 8 and would not have been discovered or presented at the 9 previous proceeding,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see 10 also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). 11 We find no error in the BIA’s determination that Alle 12 failed to demonstrate materially changed country conditions 13 excusing the untimely filing of her motion to reopen because 14 the record evidence demonstrated continued systematic 15 violence against women in Somalia since at least 1991, and 16 did not indicate that conditions had materially worsened 17 since Alle’s 1999 hearing. See 8 U.S.C. 18 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. 19 Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007) (“In determining whether 20 evidence accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates a 21 material change in country conditions that would justify 22 reopening, [the BIA] compare[s] the evidence of country 3 1 conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed 2 at the time of the merits hearing below.”). Accordingly, 3 the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Alle’s 4 motion to reopen as untimely, and we must deny the petition 5 for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C). 6 Alle reinstated this case after it was tolled pursuant 7 to In re Immigration Petitions for Review Pending in the 8 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 702 9 F.3d 160, 160-61 (2d Cir. 2012). Nothing in this order 10 should inhibit the government from considering whether 11 pursuing Alle’s removal to Somalia is low priority 12 warranting administrative closure. 13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 14 DENIED. 15 16 FOR THE COURT: 17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 4