11-4989 BIA
Tasik v. Holder A096 426 194
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 22nd day of August, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 ROBERT D. SACK,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 YOHANES TASIK,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-4989
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Yohanes Tasik, pro se, Avenel, New
24 Jersey.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Ernesto H. Molina,
28 Jr., Assistant Director; Jeffery R.
29 Leist, Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, Civil
31 Division, United States Department
32 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 Yohanes Tasik, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks
6 review of an October 27, 2011, order of the BIA denying his
7 motion to reopen. In re Yohanes Tasik, No. A096 426 194
8 (B.I.A. Oct. 27, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity
9 with the underlying facts and procedural history of this
10 case.
11 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
12 abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d
13 Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (internal citation omitted). A
14 petitioner may file only one motion to reopen, and that
15 motion must be filed within 90 days of the date the final
16 administrative decision was rendered, 8 C.F.R.
17 § 1003.2(c)(2), unless the motion is “based on changed
18 country conditions arising in the [petitioner’s] country of
19 nationality,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). Here, there is
20 no dispute that Tasik’s 2011 motion was untimely and number-
21 barred, because he previously filed a motion to reopen in
22 2008, and his administrative order of removal became final
23 in 2005. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); see also
24 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
2
1 In his brief, Tasik argues that the BIA erred in
2 denying his motion to reopen because the pattern or practice
3 of persecution of Christians in Indonesia is “ongoing.”
4 However, as Tasik fails to argue changed conditions in
5 Indonesia since his previous hearing in 2004, as required
6 for untimely and number-barred motions to reopen, Matter of
7 S-Y-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2007), he has waived any
8 challenge to the BIA’s finding that his motion to reopen is
9 both untimely and number-barred, see Yueqing Zhang v.
10 Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005).
11 To the extent Tasik challenges the BIA’s determination
12 not to reopen his proceedings sua sponte, we lack
13 jurisdiction to consider a challenge to that purely
14 discretionary determination. Ali, 448 F.3d at 518. To the
15 extent Tasik requests that we take judicial notice of
16 documents he submitted with his brief that are outside the
17 administrative record, that request is denied. Xiao Xing Ni
18 v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 260, 269-70 (2d Cir. 2007); accord 8
19 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A).
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
23 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
24 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
3
1 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
2 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
3 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6
7
8
9
4