Singh v. Garland ( 2021 )

20-687
Singh v. Garland
BIA
A206 513 468
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 United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 16th day of November, two thousand twenty-one.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 GERARD E. LYNCH,
9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 JOGA SINGH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 20-687
17 NAC
18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights,
24 NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting
27 Assistant Attorney General;
28 Anthony C. Payne, Assistant
29 Director; Judith R. O’Sullivan,
1 Trial Attorney, Office of
2 Immigration Litigation, United
3 States Department of Justice,
4 Washington, DC.
5
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
9 is DENIED.
10 Petitioner Joga Singh, a native and citizen of India,
11 seeks review of a January 31, 2020, decision of the BIA,
12 denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re
13 Joga Singh, No. A206 513 468 (B.I.A. Jan. 31, 2020). We
14 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
15 procedural history.
16 As an initial matter, Singh timely petitions for review
17 of the denial of his motion to reopen, but not from the
18 underlying order denying asylum and related relief on
19 credibility grounds, which Singh failed to timely appeal.
20 Order, Singh v. Barr, No. 18-2314 (2d Cir. May 8, 2019), ECF
21 no. 38. Thus, we do not consider his challenges to that
22 underlying decision. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of
23 Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89–90 (2d Cir. 2001). While we review
24 the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of
2
1 discretion, we review the agency’s findings of fact regarding
2 changed country conditions for substantial evidence. See Jian
3 Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008).
4 In his motion to reopen, Singh asserted that members of
5 the Congress Party and the police had recently threatened and
6 harassed his parents in an effort to locate him on account of
7 his membership in the Sikh-affiliated Akali Dal Mann Party.
8 As support, he submitted his own written statement and general
9 country conditions evidence.
10 It is undisputed that Singh’s October 2019 motion to
11 reopen was untimely because he filed it more than one year
12 after his removal order became final in July 2018. See
13 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
14 Although the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen
15 does not apply if reopening is sought to apply for asylum
16 “based on changed country conditions arising in the country
17 of nationality or the country to which removal has been
18 ordered,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R.
19 § 1003.2(c)(3), the BIA did not err in finding that Singh
20 failed to show changed conditions in India.
21 The BIA did not err in discounting Singh’s unsworn
22 statement that the police had recently harassed his parents
3
1 because Singh was previously found not credible by the
2 immigration judge in the underlying proceedings. See Y.C. v.
3 Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) (“We generally defer
4 to the agency’s evaluation of the weight to be afforded an
5 applicant’s documentary evidence.”); Qin Wen Zheng v.
6 Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146–49 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that
7 the agency may decline to credit unauthenticated evidence
8 submitted with a motion to reopen by an alien who was found
9 not credible in the underlying proceedings). The BIA also
10 reasonably found that Singh’s country conditions evidence did
11 not establish a material change in conditions in India but
12 rather “a continuation of political and religious abuses,
13 including at the hands of police and political parties.” In
14 re Joga Singh, No. A206 513 468, at 2; see also 8 U.S.C.
15 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253
16 (B.I.A. 2007) (“In determining whether evidence accompanying
17 a motion to reopen demonstrates a material change in country
18 conditions that would justify reopening, [the BIA] compare[s]
19 the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion
20 to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing
21 below.”). Because Singh failed to demonstrate a material
22 change in conditions in India, the BIA did not abuse its
4
1 discretion in denying his motion to reopen as untimely. See
2 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C).
3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
4 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
5 stays VACATED.
6 FOR THE COURT:
7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
8 Clerk of Court
5