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