10-4409-ag
Hamid v. Holder
BIA
A098 422 886
A098 422 887
A098 422 888
A098 422 889
A098 422 890
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 20th day of December, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11
12 _________________________________________
13
14 ASIF HAMID, ET AL.,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 10-4409-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _________________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Law Office of Usman B. Ahmad, Long
25 Island City, New York, New York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
1 General; John S. Hogan, Senior
2 Litigation Counsel; Michael C.
3 Heyse, Trial Attorney, Office of
4 Immigration Litigation, United
5 States Department of Justice,
6 Washington, D.C.
7
8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
11 is DENIED.
12 Petitioner Asif Hamid, a native and citizen of
13 Pakistan, seeks review of the September 30, 2010, decision
14 of the BIA denying his motion to reopen.* In re Asif Hamid,
15 et al., Nos. A098 422 886/887/888/889/890 (B.I.A. Sept. 30,
16 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
17 underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
18 The BIA’s denial of Hamid’s motion to reopen as
19 untimely was not an abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA,
20 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). A motion to
21 reopen generally must be filed no later than 90 days after
22 the date on which the final administrative decision was
*
Hamid’s wife Rashida Arshi, and his three children, Wasif
Hamid, Aisha Hamid, and Hariss Hamid, were included as derivative
beneficiaries on his application for relief.
2
1 rendered in the proceedings sought to be reopened. 8 U.S.C.
2 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is no
3 dispute that Hamid’s 2010 motion was untimely, as the final
4 administrative order was issued in 2008. See 8 U.S.C.
5 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The time
6 limitation does not apply to a motion to reopen if it is
7 “based on changed circumstances arising in the country of
8 nationality or in the country to which deportation has been
9 ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available
10 and could not have been discovered or presented at the
11 previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also
12 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). However, Hamid failed to
13 establish changed circumstances in Pakistan.
14 Hamid argues that he demonstrated changed country
15 conditions by submitting evidence showing that conditions
16 have deteriorated in Pakistan, particularly for members of
17 the Pakistan Peoples Party (“PPP”). However, the BIA’s
18 determination that the evidence failed to demonstrate
19 changed country conditions since Hamid’s 2007 hearing is
20 supported by substantial evidence, as Hamid’s evidence
21 showed only that politically motivated killings continued to
22 occur, not that conditions had worsened for PPP supporters.
3
1 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.
2 2008). Moreover, Hamid’s fear of future persecution based
3 on changed country conditions in Pakistan rests on the same
4 factual predicate underlying his original asylum claim,
5 namely, that he will be persecuted as a member of the PPP.
6 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Hamid’s
7 evidence was insufficient because it was premised upon a
8 claim that the agency already had determined was not
9 credible. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 147
10 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that the BIA did not abuse its
11 discretion in denying a motion to reopen based on changed
12 country conditions where there was an underlying adverse
13 credibility determination).
14 Because the evidence Hamid submitted was insufficient
15 to establish a change in country conditions, the BIA did not
16 abuse its discretion in concluding that he failed to meet an
17 exception to the filing deadline, and, accordingly, in
18 denying his motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C.
19 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), (ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3).
20 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
21 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
22 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
4
1 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
2 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
3 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
4 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second
5 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
6 FOR THE COURT:
7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
8
9
10
5