Singh v. Lynch

14-437 Singh v. Lynch BIA A098 479 800 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 18th day of Sepember, two thousand fifteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 RANJIT SINGH, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 14-437 17 NAC 18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Genet Getachew, Brooklyn, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Jennifer Williams, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Lance L. 28 Jolley, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, Civil 30 Division, United States Department 31 of 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 Petitioner Ranjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, 6 seeks review of a January 22, 2014, decision of the BIA 7 denying his motion to reopen proceedings. In re Ranjit 8 Singh, No. A098 479 800 (B.I.A. Jan. 22, 2014). We assume 9 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 10 procedural history in 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.” See Ali v. 14 Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing INS v. 15 Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322-23 (1992)). An alien seeking to 16 reopen proceedings must move to reopen no later than ninety 17 days after the date on which the final administrative 18 decision was rendered. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C); 19 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). 20 Singh moved to reopen more than 120 days after his 21 order of removal became administratively final. While a 22 motion to reopen proceedings to apply for asylum is exempt 23 from the filing deadline if it is based on changed 2 1 conditions arising in the country to which removal was 2 ordered, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii), Singh expressly 3 states that he is not applying for asylum. Further, he does 4 not argue that he is eligible for any other exception to the 5 filing deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); Matter of 6 Yauri, 25 I. & N. Dec. 103, 105 (B.I.A. 2009)(noting that 7 the 90-day filing deadline applies to “a motion to reopen in 8 any case previously the subject of a final order of the 9 Board,” unless the movant is applying for asylum and can 10 show materially changed country conditions (emphasis 11 added)). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion 12 in denying Singh’s motion as untimely. 13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 14 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 15 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 16 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 17 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 18 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 19 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 20 34.1(b). 21 FOR THE COURT: 22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 23 3