UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1545
HARVINDERJIT SINGH SAHI,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: October 25, 2016 Decided: November 8, 2016
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harvinderjit Singh Sahi, Petitioner Pro Se. Sheri Robyn Glaser,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Harvinderjit Singh Sahi, a native and citizen of India,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen. For the reasons set
forth below, we deny the petition for review.
An alien may file one motion to reopen within 90 days of the
entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)
(2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2016). This time limit does not
apply if the basis for the motion is to seek asylum or withholding
of removal based on changed country conditions, “if such evidence
is material and was not available and would not have been
discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); accord 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of
discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2016); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S.
314, 323-24 (1992); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir.
2009). The Board’s “denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed with
extreme deference, given that motions to reopen are disfavored
because every delay works to the advantage of the deportable alien
who wishes merely to remain in the United States.” Sadhvani v.
Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The motion “shall state the new facts that will be
proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall
be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.” 8
2
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). It “shall not be granted unless it appears
to the Board that evidence sought to be offered is material and
was not available and could not have been discovered or presented
at the former hearing.” Id.
Here, the Board correctly found that Sahi’s motion was
untimely because it was not filed within 90 days of the final
administrative decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). We further
conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that Sahi
failed to establish changed country conditions excusing a late
motion to reopen.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3