08-5333-ag
Ali v. Holder
BIA
DeFonzo, IJ
A076 090 364
A095 961 808
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 27 th day of January, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
ROBERT D. SACK,
BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
REENA RAGGI,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
LIAQAT ALI, ADEEL LIAQAT,
Petitioners,
v. 08-5333-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL, *
Respondent.
______________________________________
*
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is
automatically substituted for former Attorney General
Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.
FOR PETITIONERS: Khaghendra Gharti-Chhetry, New York,
New York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Anh-Thu P. Mai-Windle,
Senior Litigation Counsel; Annette
M. Wietecha, Trial Attorney, Office
of Immigration Litigation, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Petitioners, Liaqat Ali and his son Adeel Liaqat,
natives and citizens of Pakistan, seek review of an October
3, 2008 order of the BIA denying their motion to reopen and
to reconsider. In re Liaqat Ali, Nos. A076 090 364, A095
961 808 (B.I.A. Oct. 3, 2008). We review the BIA’s denial
of a motion to reopen or reconsider for abuse of discretion.
See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per
curiam); Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d
Cir. 2006). In applying this standard, we assume the
parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history in this case.
An alien seeking to reopen proceedings must file a
motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the final
administrative decision is rendered in his case. See 8
2
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is no dispute that
petitioners’ motion was filed more than 90 days after their
order of removal became final. Such untimely filing may be
excused where an alien presents material and previously
unavailable evidence of changed country conditions. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). We detect no abuse of discretion
in the BIA’s determination that petitioners failed to meet
this standard because the evidence they presented was
insufficient to rebut the adverse credibility finding
affirmed in its prior order. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales,
500 F.3d 143, 147-48 (2d Cir. 2007); Kaur, 413 F.3d at 234.
Further, even if we were to assume that the BIA ignored the
2007 U.S. State Department report submitted to it by the
government, which we do not, cf. Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t
of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 336 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting
that “we presume that an IJ has taken into account all of
the evidence before him, unless the record compellingly
suggests otherwise”), the report does not demonstrate that
conditions have worsened for members of the Pakistani Muslim
League.
There are no exceptions from the rule that a motion to
reconsider must be filed within 30 days of the mailing of
the BIA’s decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). We
identify no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s denial of
3
petitioners’ untimely motion to reconsider, or in its
conclusion that, even if their motion had been timely filed,
petitioners failed to specify errors of fact or law in its
prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen Zhao
v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2001).
As the BIA noted, it had previously rejected petitioners’
argument that Liaqat Ali’s medication had an impact on his
ability to testify credibly. See Jin Ming Liu, 439 F.3d at
111 (“The BIA does not abuse its discretion by denying a
motion to reconsider where the motion repeats arguments that
the BIA has previously rejected.”).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4