20-290
Hamida v. Garland
BIA
A076 134 193
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 TO 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 Thurgood Marshall
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 9th day of November, two thousand twenty-
5 one.
6
7 PRESENT:
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 WILLIAM J. NARDINI,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 MOUMOUNI HAMIDA,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 20-290
18 NAC
19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Moumouni Hamida, pro se, New
25 York, NY.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting
28 Assistant Attorney General; Derek
29 C. Julius, Assistant Director;
1 Anthony O. Pottinger, Trial
2 Attorney, Office of Immigration
3 Litigation, United States
4 Department of Justice, Washington,
5 DC.
6
7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
10 is DENIED.
11 Petitioner Moumouni Hamida, a native and citizen of
12 Niger, seeks review of a December 31, 2019, decision of the
13 BIA, denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In
14 re Moumouni Hamida, No. A076 134 193 (B.I.A. Dec. 31, 2019).
15 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
16 and procedural history.
17 While we review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen
18 for abuse of discretion, we review the agency’s findings of
19 fact regarding changed country conditions for substantial
20 evidence. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69
21 (2d Cir. 2008). In his motion to reopen, Hamida asserted both
22 that he feared political persecution in Niger and that he and
23 his U.S. citizen children would be unable to access required
24 medical treatment in that country.
2
1 It is undisputed that Hamida’s 2019 motion was time
2 barred because he filed it more than 17 years after his
3 removal order became final in 2002. See 8 U.S.C.
4 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Although the
5 time limit does not apply if reopening is sought to apply for
6 asylum “based on changed country conditions arising in the
7 country of nationality or the country to which removal has
8 been ordered,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R.
9 § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), the BIA did not err in finding that Hamida
10 failed to establish a material change in conditions in Niger.
11 Hamida’s motion emphasizes both his and his U.S. citizen
12 children’s medical conditions and the political conditions in
13 Niger. But Hamida’s and his U.S. citizen children’s medical
14 conditions are changes in personal circumstances that
15 occurred in the United States and do not excuse the applicable
16 time limitation. See Li Yong Zheng v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
17 416 F.3d 129, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2005). And while a letter from
18 Hamida’s cousin states that political conditions in Niger are
19 dangerous and that the healthcare available in the country is
20 inadequate, the letter does not establish that such
21 conditions constitute a change from the time of Hamida’s 1999
3
1 hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also In re S-
2 Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007) (“In determining
3 whether evidence accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates
4 a material change in country conditions that would justify
5 reopening, [the BIA] compare[s] the evidence of country
6 conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at
7 the time of the merits hearing below.”). Accordingly, because
8 the BIA reasonably concluded that Hamida failed to
9 demonstrate a material change in conditions in Niger, it did
10 not abuse its discretion in denying his motion as untimely.
11 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C).
12 We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision insofar
13 as it declined to reopen Hamida’s removal proceedings sua
14 sponte. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d Cir. 2006).
15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
16 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
17 stays VACATED.
18 FOR THE COURT:
19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
20 Clerk of Court
4