Kraja v. Holder , 570 F. App'x 75 ( 2014 )

13-1770
Kraja v. Holder
BIA
A095 837 722
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 23rd day of June, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 EREN KRAJA,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-1770
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael P. Diraimondo, Melville, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Francis W. Fraser, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; Jacob A.
29 Bashyrov, Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 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 Eren Kraja, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks
6 review of an April 8, 2013, decision of the BIA denying his
7 motion to reopen. In re Eren Kraja, No. A095 837 722
8 (B.I.A. Apr. 8, 2013). It is undisputed that Kraja’s motion
9 was untimely because it was filed approximately nine years
10 after the agency’s final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
11 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). However, “[t]here is no time limit on
12 the filing of a motion to reopen . . . based on changed
13 country conditions arising in the country of nationality or
14 the country to which removal has been ordered, if such
15 evidence is material and was not available . . . at the
16 previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).
17 An alien seeking to have an administrative decision
18 reopened on this basis bears the “‘heavy burden’ of
19 demonstrating that the proffered new evidence would likely
20 alter the result in [his] case.” Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d
21 138, 168 (2d Cir. 2008). We review the BIA’s decision on
22 this point only for abuse of discretion. Id. After
23 considering the record, we find no error in the BIA’s
2
1 determination that Kraja failed to meet his burden.
2 Moreover, Kraja’s claim that the BIA did not consider all of
3 his evidence is untrue. Kraja does not identify what
4 evidence he believes the BIA failed to consider and the
5 BIA’s decision specifically discusses all of the exhibits
6 Kraja provided.
7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
8 DENIED.
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
11
12
3