09-5076-ag
Camara v. Holder
BIA
A077 901 839/840
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 31st day of January, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _________________________________________
12
13 DJENABA CAMARA, MAMADOU ALOU KANTE,
14 Petitioners,
15
16 v. 09-5076-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _________________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONERS: Andrew P. Johnson, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney General;
26 Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation
27 Counsel; Brianne Whelan Cohen, Trial
28 Attorney, Office of Immigration
29 Litigation, United States Department of
30 Justice, Washington, D.C.
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 Petitioners Djenaba Camara and Mamadou Alou Kante,
6 natives and citizens of Guinea, seek review of a November 13,
7 2009, decision of the BIA denying their untimely motion to
8 reopen based on changed country conditions. See 8 U.S.C. §
9 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); In re Djenaba Camara, Mamadou Alou Kante,
10 Nos. A077 901 839/840 (B.I.A. Nov. 13, 2009). We assume the
11 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural
12 history of this case.
13 On petitions for review of denied statutory motions to
14 reopen, we review the BIA’s conclusions of law de novo. Luna
15 v. Holder, 637 F.3d 85, 102 (2d Cir. 2011). When the BIA has
16 applied the correct law, we review its decision for abuse of
17 discretion. Id.; Iavorski v. U.S. INS, 232 F.3d 124, 128 (2d
18 Cir. 2000). To reopen removal proceedings to apply or reapply
19 for asylum after the time for filing a motion to reopen has
20 passed, the motion must establish both changed country
21 conditions and prima facie eligibility for relief. Jian Hui
22 Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168 (2d Cir. 2008).
2
1 The BIA did not err in concluding that petitioners failed
2 to demonstrate their prima facie eligibility for relief based
3 on their opposition to female genital mutilation (“FGM”)
4 because they did not submit evidence of their active or public
5 opposition to FGM, see Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d
6 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008) (providing that “an alien must make
7 some showing that authorities in his country of nationality
8 are either aware of his activities or likely to become aware
9 of his activities” in order to establish a well-founded fear
10 of persecution), and because the country conditions evidence
11 did not indicate that such individuals are persecuted.
12 Petitioners argue that the BIA overlooked material
13 evidence in concluding that petitioners could not establish
14 eligibility for relief based solely on their daughters’ likely
15 subjection to FGM. Petitioners’ argument is unavailing
16 because the BIA concluded, as a matter of law, that a parent
17 may not obtain relief based solely on his or her daughter’s
18 risk of FGM. As petitioners have not challenged the BIA’s
19 legal conclusion and interpretation of In re A-K-, 24 I. & N.
20 Dec. 275 (BIA 2007), we consider that issue abandoned on
21 appeal. See State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Inversiones
22 Errazuriz Limitada, 374 F.3d 158, 172 (2d Cir. 2004).
3
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
3 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
4
5
6 FOR THE COURT:
7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
8
9
4