12-3637
Subba v. Holder
BIA
A087 445 616
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 March, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 RATNA SUBBA,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 12-3637
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Ramesh K. Shrestha, New York, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; David V. Bernal,
28 Assistant Director; Lindsay W.
29 Zimliki, Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 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 Ratna Subba, a native and citizen of Nepal, seeks
6 review of an August 14, 2012, decision of the BIA denying
7 her motion to reopen. In re Ratna Subba, No. A087 445 616
8 (B.I.A. Aug. 14, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity
9 with the underlying facts and procedural history of this
10 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) (citing INS v.
15 Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322-23 (1992)). The BIA did not
16 abuse its discretion in denying Subba’s motion to reopen
17 because she failed to rebut the agency’s underlying adverse
18 credibility determination. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232,
19 234 (2d Cir. 2005). Although, as she asserts, the IJ found
20 her credible as to the fact that she was a teacher in Nepal,
21 the IJ nevertheless rejected as not credible her assertions
22 that Maoists had harmed her and threatened to harm her,
23 irrespective of whether they were motivated by her status as
2
1 a teacher or her political affiliation. Moreover, Subba did
2 not submit to the BIA any new, objective evidence regarding
3 Maoists’ treatment of teachers in Nepal. Cf. Paul v.
4 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 152-55 (2d Cir. 2006) (concluding
5 that the BIA abuses its discretion in denying a motion to
6 reopen based solely on a failure to rebut an underlying
7 adverse credibility determination if the movant was found
8 credible regarding his or her possession of a
9 characteristic, such as practicing a religion, and the
10 movant presents new, objective evidence regarding the
11 persecution of individuals possessing that characteristic).
12 Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
13 Subba’s motion to reopen. See Kaur, 413 F.3d at 234; see
14 also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B).
15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
16 DENIED.
17 FOR THE COURT:
18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
19
20
3