09-2665-ag
Ndoci v. Holder
BIA
A079 727 140
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 5th day of April, two thousand twelve.
PRESENT:
ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
Circuit Judges.
_______________________________________
ALBANA NDOCI,
Petitioner,
v. 09-2665-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Andrew P. Johnson, New York, New
York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant
Director; Janice K. Redfern, Senior
Litigation Counsel, 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.
Petitioner Albana Ndoci, a native and citizen of
Albania, seeks review of the May 29, 2009, order of the BIA
denying her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. In re
Albana Ndoci, No. A079 727 140 (B.I.A. May 29, 2009). We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
and procedural history in this case. We review the BIA’s
denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See
Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ndoci’s
motion to reopen as untimely, as she filed it more than
seven months after the BIA’s order upholding the immigration
judge’s underlying merits decision. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Although the
time limitation does not apply to a motion to reopen seeking
to apply for asylum “based on changed circumstances arising
in the country of nationality or in the country to which
deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material
and was not available and could not have been discovered or
2
presented at the previous hearing,” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii),
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Ndoci
did not demonstrate a change in country conditions in
Albania.
The evidence submitted indicated a continuation, from
the time of Ndoci’s initial application to the time of her
motion to reopen, of police abuses, violence against women,
electoral deficiencies, divisiveness between the Socialist
Party and the Democratic Party, and the control of local
authorities in Tirana by the Socialist Party. Because the
evidence demonstrated a continuation of the same conditions,
the BIA reasonably concluded that there had not been a
change in conditions. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546
F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008) (holding that when the agency
explicitly considers relevant evidence of country conditions
in evaluating a motion to reopen, this Court reviews the
agency’s factual findings under the substantial evidence
standard). There is no indication that the BIA failed to
consider any evidence. See Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d
270, 274-75 (2d Cir. 2006).
3
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4