Singh v. Holder , 483 F. App'x 656 ( 2012 )

10-4571-ag
Singh v. Holder
BIA
A077 692 377
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New
York, on the 29th day of May, two thousand twelve.
PRESENT:
JON O. NEWMAN,
ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
Circuit Judges.
_______________________________________
JOGA SINGH,
Petitioner,
v. 10-4571-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, New
York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney General;
Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant
Director; Nancy Naseem Safavi, Trial
Attorney, Office of Immigration
Litigation, United States Department
of Justice, Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Joga Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review
of an October 8, 2010 order of the BIA denying his motion to
reopen. In re Joga Singh, No. A077 692 377 (B.I.A. Oct. 8,
2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
facts and procedural history of the case.
The BIA’s denial of Singh’s motion to reopen as untimely
and number-barred was not an abuse of discretion. See Kaur v.
BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (providing
that this Court reviews the denial of reopening for abuse of
discretion). A motion to reopen must generally be filed no
later than 90 days after the date on which the final
administrative decision was rendered in the proceedings sought
to be reopened and only one such motion may be filed. 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There
is no dispute that Singh’s 2010 motion was untimely and
number-barred, as it was his fifth such motion and the final
administrative decision was issued in 2002. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). However,
the time and number limitations do not apply to a motion to
-2-
reopen if it is “based on changed circumstances arising in the
country of nationality or in the country to which deportation
has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not
available and could not have been discovered or presented at
the previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). Singh contends that he
submitted material evidence of changed country circumstances
to the BIA in the form of affidavits and country reports,
including a 2008 United States Department of State report on
India. Specifically, he claims that human rights abuses by
police in India support his claim that he would face
persecution if he returned to India based upon his practice of
the Sikh religion and involvement in the Akali Dal Mann
political party.
Contrary to Singh’s assertion, and, as the BIA reasonably
concluded, the affidavits and country reports do not show
material changed country circumstances in India. Although
Singh’s brothers’ affidavits both assert that they were
arrested in 2009 and questioned about Singh’s location,
neither affidavit contains any information showing these
arrests were motivated by any religious or political reason.
In addition, a comparison of the United States Department of
-3-
State Country Reports for India in 2000 and 2008– the reports
that were submitted to the Immigration Judge during Singh’s
removal proceedings, and with Singh’s 2010 motion to reopen,
respectively– do not show a material change in country
conditions that would require reopening. See INS v. Abudu,
485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988); see also Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I.
& N. Dec 247, 253 (BIA 2007) (finding that “[i]n determining
whether evidence accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates
a material change in country conditions that would justify
reopening, we compare the evidence of country conditions
submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time of
the merits hearing below”). Specifically, the reports and
affidavits do not include evidence that the reported police
abuse in India targets those who practice the Sikh religion or
are involved in the Akali Dal Mann political party. Because
the BIA reasonably concluded that Singh failed to show a
change in circumstances in India relevant to his alleged fear
of persecution, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in
denying his motion as untimely and number-barred.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
-4-
and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in
this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
34.1(b).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
-5-