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