Singh v. Sessions ( 2018 )

17-824
Singh v. Sessions
BIA
A096 200 156
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 20th day of August, two thousand eighteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 GERARD E. LYNCH,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 GURJIT SINGH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 17-824
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Fremont, CA.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Terri J.
27 Scadron, Assistant Director; Siu
28 P. Wong, Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, DC.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Gurjit Singh, a native and citizen of India,
6 seeks review of a March 3, 2017, decision of the BIA denying
7 Singh’s fourth motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In
8 re Gurjit Singh, No. A 096 200 156 (B.I.A. Mar. 3, 2017). We
9 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
10 procedural history in this case.
11 We review the BIA’s denial of Singh’s motion to reopen
12 for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515,
13 517 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the BIA’s factual findings
14 regarding country conditions under the substantial evidence
15 standard. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169
16 (2d Cir. 2008). An alien seeking to reopen proceedings may
17 file one motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the
18 final administrative decision is rendered. 8 U.S.C.
19 § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Singh’s
20 fourth motion to reopen, filed eight years after his final
21 order of removal, was untimely and number barred.
22 However, the time and number limitations do not apply
2
1 if the motion is filed to apply for asylum “based on
2 changed country conditions arising in the country of
3 nationality or the country to which removal has been
4 ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available
5 and would not have been discovered or presented at the
6 previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see
7 also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Evidence is not
8 “previously unavailable” if it “could have been presented
9 at the hearing before the IJ,” Norani v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d
10 292, 294 (2d Cir. 2006), and in reviewing whether there has
11 been a change, the BIA compares the country conditions at
12 the time of the hearing with those at the time of the
13 motion to reopen, In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253
14 (BIA 2007).
15 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that
16 Singh failed to establish changed country conditions. As in
17 his three other motions, Singh alleged that the Indian police
18 continued to search for him and were harassing his family and
19 searching their home. Other than alleging specific visits
20 and threats, these allegations are indistinguishable from
21 those Singh made in his previous motions to reopen. See
22 Norani, 451 F.3d at 294; In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at
3
1 253. Moreover, we have already upheld the BIA’s conclusion
2 that those allegations did not amount to changed country
3 conditions. See Singh v. Holder, 541 F. App’x 121, 121-22
4 (2d Cir. 2013); Singh v. Lynch, 615 F. App’x 716, 716-17 (2d
5 Cir. 2015).
6 In addition, the allegations reflect a continuation of
7 the circumstances underlying Singh’s original asylum claim.
8 Because Singh’s original claim was denied on credibility
9 grounds, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to
10 credit Singh’s family members’ affidavits, which are
11 essentially identical, and which describe the arrests as to
12 which Singh was found not credible. Qin Wen Zheng v.
13 Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 147 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that BIA
14 may rely on underlying adverse credibility determination to
15 reject new evidence that relies on the same facts).
16 Nor does Singh’s other evidence establish changed
17 conditions. The news articles describing police actions
18 against Punjabi Sikhs and their political leaders echo
19 similar events described in articles Singh submitted during
20 his 2007 hearing. And the State Department’s 2015 Country
21 Report documents conditions similar to those in the 2006
22 Report. See In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 253.
4
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED.
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5