Case ID: f-appx_367/html/0218-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ardian SHKURTI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-2727-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 24, 2010.
    
      Charles Christophe, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Russell J.E. Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel; Monica G. Antoun, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, B.D. PARKER, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Ardían Shkurti, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of a June 15, 2009, order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Ardían Shkurti, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 15, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, mindful of the Supreme Court’s admonition that such motions are “disfavored.” Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006) (citing INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322-23, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992)). We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s evaluation of country conditions evidence submitted with a motion to reopen. Jian Huí Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.2008).

A party may file only one motion to reopen removal proceedings, and must do so no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1), (2). Petitioner’s motion to reopen was untimely. However, the time and number limitations do not apply to a motion to reopen that 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)(h).

Petitioner argues that the BIA failed to properly consider evidence in the record. We disagree. The BIA properly considered the record as a whole, explaining that the evidence Petitioner submitted was “insufficient to warrant reopening” because “while some changes in conditions in Albania have been demonstrated, it is clear that some significant changes in Albania are not advantageous to [petitioner’s] claim.”

Petitioner points to news articles, reports, and an affidavit from Prenk Camaj, that refer to the February 2007 elections and the disappearance or death of political activists. However, the BIA considered this evidence stating, “we emphasize that the Democratic Party, with which [petitioner] and his family have been affiliated, has become the ruling majority.” We have previously taken judicial notice of the fact that country conditions in Albania have improved rather than worsened for Democratic Party supporters since Albania’s 2005 elections. See Hoxhallari v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 179, 187 (2d Cir.2006). On this record, we cannot conclude that the BIA erred in evaluating Petitioner’s evidence. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S., 265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir.2001); Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 169.

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, 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).