09-0806-ag
Uniwati v. Holder
BIA
Hladylowycz, IJ
A096 260 546
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS
FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1
AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A
LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST
ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION:
“(SUMMARY ORDER).” A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER
TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED
BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT
HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE
ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE
DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.
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 5 th day of January, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 TJAHJONO UNIWATI,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-0806-ag
17 NAC
18
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. ATTORNEY
20 GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _______________________________________
1 FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, New York, New
2 York.
3
4 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
5 General, Anthony C. Payne, Senior
6 Litigation Counsel, Colette J.
7 Winston, Attorney, Office of
8 Immigration Litigation, Civil
9 Division, United States Department
10 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 Petitioner Tjahjono Uniwati, a native and citizen of
6 Indonesia, seeks review of a January 30, 2009 order of the
7 BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings.
8 In re Tjahjono Uniwati, No. A096 260 546 (B.I.A. Jan. 30,
9 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
10 underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
11 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
12 abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517
13 (2d Cir. 2006). However, when the BIA analyzes country
14 conditions evidence submitted with a motion to reopen, “we
15 review the BIA’s fact-finding only for ‘substantial
16 evidence.’” Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169
2
1 (2d Cir. 2008).
2 An alien who has been ordered removed may file one
3 motion to reopen, but must do so within 90 days of the final
4 administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7). Here, the
5 BIA properly denied Uniwati’s motion to reopen as untimely
6 where he filed it over eighteen months after his February
7 2007 final order of removal. See id.; 8 C.F.R.
8 § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA properly concluded that the
9 evidence Uniwati submitted, including the most recent State
10 Department International Religious Freedom Report for
11 Indonesia, did not “adequately demonstrate[] material
12 changed country conditions” that would warrant an exception
13 to the filing deadline.
14 Uniwati argues that the BIA erred in finding that he
15 did not demonstrate changed country conditions because it
16 did not “explain under what standard” it reached its
17 conclusion. However, while the BIA may abuse its discretion
18 if it gives no indication that it considered “country
19 conditions evidence submitted by an applicant that
20 materially bears on his claim,” Poradisova v. Gonzales,
21 420 F.3d 70, 81 (2d Cir. 2005), it is not required to
22 “expressly parse or refute on the record each individual
3
1 argument or piece of evidence offered by the petitioner,”
2 Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir. 2006)
3 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, presented with
4 evidence it is “asked to consider time and again,” the BIA
5 reasonably found that Uniwati had not shown changed country
6 conditions. See id. Even accepting Uniwati’s assertion
7 that the record contained evidence of both interreligious
8 violence and governmental support for religious diversity,
9 the record does not compel the conclusion that the agency
10 erred in finding that there had not been a material change.
11 Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 169.
12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
13 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
14 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
15 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
16 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
17 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
18 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
19 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
20 FOR THE COURT:
21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
22
23
24 By:____________________________
25
4