10-3920-ag
Kadria v. Holder
BIA
A078 280 103
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 1st day of December, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 LAHIM KADRIA,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 10-3920-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael P. Diraimondo, Melville, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Janice K. Redfern, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; Theodore C.
29 Hirt, Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 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 Lahim Kadria, a native and citizen of
6 Albania, seeks review of the September 21, 2010, order of
7 the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal
8 proceedings. In re Lahim Kadria, No. A078 280 103 (B.I.A.
9 Sept. 21, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with
10 the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
11 We review the BIA’s denial of Kadria’s motion to reopen for
12 abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517
13 (2d Cir. 2006).
14 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
15 Kadria’s motion to reopen as untimely, as he filed it more
16 than seven years after the BIA’s order upholding an
17 immigration judge’s underlying merits decision. 8 U.S.C.
18 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (providing that a motion to reopen must
19 be filed within 90 days of the final administrative
20 decision); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (same). Although the
21 time limitation does not apply to a motion to reopen seeking
22 to apply for asylum “based on changed circumstances arising
2
1 in the country of nationality or in the country to which
2 deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material
3 and was not available and could not have been discovered or
4 presented at the previous hearing,” 8 C.F.R.
5 § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii);see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii),
6 substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Kadria
7 did not demonstrate a change in country conditions in
8 Albania. The evidence submitted indicated a continuation,
9 from the time of Kadria’s initial application to the time of
10 his motion to reopen, of political violence and divisiveness
11 between the Socialist Party and the Democratic Party, as
12 well as the election of the Democratic Party to power.
13 Because the evidence did not document any current harm to
14 Democratic Party supporters, let alone an increase in such
15 harm since the time of Kadria’s hearing in 2001, the BIA
16 reasonably concluded that Kadria had not demonstrated a
17 material change in conditions. See Jian Hui Shao v.
18 Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008) (holding that when
19 the agency explicitly considers relevant evidence of country
20 conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, this Court
21 reviews the agency’s factual findings under the substantial
22 evidence standard). There is no indication that the BIA
3
1 failed to consider any evidence. See Wei Guang Wang v. BIA,
2 437 F.3d 270, 273-74 (2d Cir. 2006).
3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
4 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion
5 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
6 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is
7 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate
8 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
9 34.1(b).34.1(b).
10 FOR THE COURT:
11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
12
13
4