17-2956
Singh v. Barr
BIA
A200 291 187
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 TO 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
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 30th day of April, two thousand nineteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 NAMINDER SINGH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 17-2956
17 NAC
18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Fremont, CA.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Anthony C.
27 Payne, Assistant Director; Raya
28 Jarawan, Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, DC.
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 Naminder Singh, a native and citizen of India,
6 seeks review of a September 6, 2017, decision of the BIA,
7 denying his motion to reopen. In re Naminder Singh, No. A200
8 291 187 (B.I.A. Sept. 6, 2017). We assume the parties’
9 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
10 in this case.
11 The applicable standards of review are well established.
12 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir.
13 2008). In his motion to reopen, Singh argued that changed
14 conditions in India should excuse the untimely filing of his
15 motion and, as support, he submitted affidavits asserting
16 that that police continued to look for him and would kill him
17 in India on account of his membership in the Akali Dal Mann
18 political party and his Sikh faith.
19 It is undisputed that Singh’s 2017 motion was untimely
20 because it was filed two years after his removal order became
21 final in 2015. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R.
2
1 § 1003.2(c)(2). However, the time limitation for filing a
2 motion to reopen does not apply if reopening is sought to
3 apply for asylum and the motion “is based on changed country
4 conditions arising in the country of nationality or the
5 country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence
6 is material and was not available and would not have been
7 discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.”
8 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3). The
9 BIA did not err in finding that Singh failed to demonstrate
10 such conditions.
11 The BIA reasonably declined to credit affidavits
12 purportedly from Singh’s father, brother, and uncle because
13 the affidavits were not accompanied by the authors’
14 identification documents, the mailing envelopes, or the
15 authors’ fingerprints despite the notary indicating that
16 their fingerprints were affixed and because Singh was found
17 not credible in his underlying proceedings. See Xiao Ji Chen
18 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006)
19 (providing that the weight afforded evidence in immigration
20 proceedings “lies largely” within agency discretion (internal
21 quotation marks and brackets omitted)); see Qin Wen Zheng v.
3
1 Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-49 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that
2 the agency may decline to credit subjective evidence
3 submitted with a motion to reopen by an alien who was found
4 not credible in the underlying proceeding).
5 Furthermore, the BIA did not err in concluding that the
6 most recent country conditions evidence, which did not
7 discuss any violence involving Mann Party members or Sikhs,
8 failed to demonstrate a material change in conditions since
9 Singh’s hearing before the IJ. See In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N.
10 Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007) (“In determining whether evidence
11 accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates a material
12 change in country conditions that would justify reopening,
13 [the BIA] compare[s] the evidence of country conditions
14 submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time
15 of the merits hearing below.”).
16 Accordingly, because the BIA reasonably concluded that
17 Singh failed to demonstrate a material change in conditions
18 in India, it did not abuse its discretion in denying his
19 motion as untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), (ii).
20 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
21 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
4
1 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
2 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
3 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
4 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
5 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
6 34.1(b).
7 FOR THE COURT:
8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe
9 Clerk of Court
10
5