Guzja v. Holder , 532 F. App'x 18 ( 2013 )

12-106
Guzja v. Holder
BIA
A073 651 649
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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 30th day of September, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 PETER W. HALL,
10 Circuit Judges.*
11 _______________________________________
12
13 BESNIK GUZJA,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 12-106
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Andrew P. Johnson, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Jennifer Williams,
*
The Honorable Joseph M. McLaughlin was an original
member of this panel. He passed away on August 8, 2013,
after having voted to deny the petition for review.
1 Senior Litigation Counsel; Colette
2 J. Winston, Trial Attorney, Office
3 of Immigration Litigation, Civil
4 Division, United States Department
5 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
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 Besnik Guzja, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks
12 review of a December 13, 2011, order of the BIA denying his
13 motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Besnik
14 Guzja, No. A073 651 649 (B.I.A. Dec. 13, 2011). We assume
15 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
16 procedural history of the case.
17 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
18 abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d
19 Cir. 2005). Here, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by
20 denying Guzja’s motion to reopen as untimely because he
21 filed it more than ten years after his final order of
22 removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C).
23 Although the time limits on motions to reopen may be
24 excused when the movant demonstrates changed country
25 conditions, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii), the BIA
2
1 reasonably concluded that Guzja’s evidence of a blood feud
2 did not demonstrate changed conditions in Albania. See Jian
3 Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008)
4 (providing that we review agency’s factual findings
5 regarding country conditions under substantial evidence
6 standard).
7 In support of reopening, Guzja presented evidence of a
8 blood feud between his family and another family. He now
9 argues that the BIA did not consider the documents he
10 submitted concerning that feud. The agency, however, is not
11 required explicitly to parse all of the evidence in the
12 record, see id., and this Court presumes that the agency
13 “has taken into account all of the evidence before [it],
14 unless the record compellingly suggests otherwise,” Xiao Ji
15 Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 337 n.17 (2d
16 Cir. 2006). Guzja’s argument that the BIA did not consider
17 his evidence is belied by the fact that the BIA explicitly
18 identified the documents, thus indicating that it had
19 considered them.
20 Indeed, the BIA explicitly addressed in some detail
21 Guzja’s principal piece of evidence regarding the blood
22 feud, a declaration from his mother and nephew stating that
3
1 death threats were made against Guzja. We defer to the
2 agency’s decision not to credit that unauthenticated
3 declaration in light of the immigration judge’s
4 determination in Guzja’s 1997 merits hearing that Guzja was
5 not a credible witness. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500
6 F.3d 143, 148 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that BIA did not abuse
7 its discretion in declining to credit documents submitted
8 with motion to reopen where alien had been found not
9 credible in underlying proceedings).
10 Moreover, as the BIA concluded, the blood feud did not
11 constitute a change in conditions, because the feud predated
12 Guzja’s 1997 merits hearing. See Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I. &
13 N. Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2007) (“In determining whether
14 evidence accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates a
15 material change in country conditions that would justify
16 reopening, [the BIA] compare[s] the evidence of country
17 conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed
18 at the time of the merits hearing below.”). We defer to
19 that conclusion given, as the BIA noted, the evidence that
20 the blood feud commenced in 1938 and killings or attempted
21 killings occurred in 1993, 1994, and 1997. See Jian Hui
22 Shao, 546 F.3d at 171 (“We do not ourselves attempt to
4
1 resolve conflicts in record evidence, a task largely within
2 the discretion of the agency.”).1
3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
4 DENIED. Any pending request for oral argument in this
5 petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
6 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
7 34.1(b).
8 FOR THE COURT:
9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
10
11
1
Since the BIA did not abuse its discretion in
denying Guzja’s motion as untimely, we do not address his
arguments concerning whether the Albanian government
would protect him from the blood feud and whether
persecution on account of a blood feud could serve as the
basis for an asylum claim because those arguments concern
his prima facie eligibility for asylum, not the
timeliness of his motion.
5