09-2727-ag
Shkurti v. Holder
BIA
A095 150 206
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 24 th day of February, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
9 PETER W. HALL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 ARDIAN SHKURTI,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-2727-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Charles Christophe, New York, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Russell J.E. Verby, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; Monica G.
29 Antoun, Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, Civil
31 Division, United States Department
32 of Justice, 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 Ardian Shkurti, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks
6 review of a June 15, 2009, order of the BIA denying his
7 motion to reopen. In re Ardian Shkurti, No. A095 150 206
8 (B.I.A. June 15, 2009). 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)). We review for
16 substantial evidence the BIA’s evaluation of country
17 conditions evidence submitted with a motion to reopen. Jian
18 Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008).
19 A party may file only one motion to reopen removal
20 proceedings, and must do so no later than 90 days after the
21 date on which the final administrative decision was rendered
22 in the proceeding sought to be reopened. 8 C.F.R.
2
1 § 1003.2(c)(1),(2). Petitioner’s motion to reopen was
2 untimely. However, the time and number limitations do not
3 apply to a motion to reopen that is “based on changed
4 circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in
5 the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such
6 evidence is material and was not available and could not
7 have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.”
8 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
9 Petitioner argues that the BIA failed to properly
10 consider evidence in the record. We disagree. The BIA
11 properly considered the record as a whole, explaining that
12 the evidence Petitioner submitted was “insufficient to
13 warrant reopening” because “while some changes in conditions
14 in Albania have been demonstrated, it is clear that some
15 significant changes in Albania are not advantageous to
16 [petitioner’s] claim.”
17 Petitioner points to news articles, reports, and an
18 affidavit from Prenk Camaj, that refer to the February 2007
19 elections and the disappearance or death of political
20 activists. However, the BIA considered this evidence
21 stating, “we emphasize that the Democratic Party, with which
22 [petitioner] and his family have been affiliated, has become
3
1 the ruling majority.” We have previously taken judicial
2 notice of the fact that country conditions in Albania have
3 improved rather than worsened for Democratic Party
4 supporters since Albania’s 2005 elections. See Hoxhallari
5 v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 179, 187 (2d Cir. 2006). On this
6 record, we cannot conclude that the BIA erred in evaluating
7 Petitioner’s evidence. See Ke Zhen Zhao, 265 F.3d at 93;
8 Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 169.
9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
11 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
12 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
13 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
14 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
15 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
16 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
17
18 FOR THE COURT:
19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
20
21
22
4