16-894 

Xhuti v. Sessions 

BIA 

Morace, IJ 

A095 378 310 

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 for 

2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

6th 4 day of April, two thousand seventeen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,

8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 

9 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 EDIOLI XHUTI, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 16-894 

17 NAC 

18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED 

19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael P. DiRaimondo, Melville, NY. 

24 

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 

26 Assistant Attorney General; Linda S. 

27 Wernery, Assistant Director; Walter 

28 Bocchini, Trial Attorney, Office of 

29 Immigration Litigation, United 

30 States Department of Justice, 

31 Washington, DC. 
2

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 

3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 

4 DENIED. 

5 Petitioner Edioli Xhuti, a native and citizen of Albania, 

6 seeks review of a February 24, 2016, decision of the BIA, 

7 affirming an August 27, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge 

8 (“IJ”) denying Xhuti’s motion to reopen. In re Edioli Xhuti, 

9 No. A095 378 310 (B.I.A. Feb. 24, 2016), aff’g No. A095 378 310 

10 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 27, 2014). We assume the parties’ 

11 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 

12 in this case. 

13 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for 

14 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 

15 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable 

16 standards of review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao 

17 v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). 

18 In his motion to reopen, Xhuti argued that worsened 

19 conditions in Albania for Democratic Party members, such as 

20 himself, should excuse the untimely filing of his motion and 

21 the untimeliness of the asylum application he would file in 

22 reopened proceedings. It is undisputed that Xhuti’s 2014 

23 motion to reopen was untimely filed more than two years after 
3

1 the IJ’s 2012 order of removal (and grant of withholding of 

2 removal) became final. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 

3 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1). However, the time limitation for 

4 filing a motion to reopen does not apply if the motion “is based 

5 on changed country conditions arising in the country of 

6 nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, 

7 if such evidence is material and was not available and would 

8 not have been discovered or presented at the previous 

9 proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. 

10 § 1003.23(b)(4)(i). 

11 The agency reasonably concluded that Dr. Bernd Fischer’s 

12 declaration did not demonstrate a material change in Albania 

13 for Democratic Party members. In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 

14 247, 253 (BIA 2007). Dr. Fischer’s 2013 declaration discusses 

15 the continuation of political unrest, violence, and corruption 

16 similar to that described in his 2011 affidavit, which was in 

17 the record of Xhuti’s underlying proceedings. Although the 

18 Socialist Party won a majority of parliamentary seats in Albania 

19 in 2013, that alone does not demonstrate that Xhuti is at greater 

20 risk of harm, particularly given that Dr. Fischer’s statements 

21 indicate that political unrest and violence are caused by both 

22 political parties and appear to continue no matter which party 

23 controls the parliament. 
4

1 Accordingly, because the agency reasonably found that 

2 Xhuti did not demonstrate a material change in country 

3 conditions in Albania, it did not abuse its discretion in 

4 denying his motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 U.S.C. 

5 § 1229a(c)(7)(C); see also In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 253, 

6 257. 

7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

8 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 

9 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 

10 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 

11 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 

12 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 

13 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 

14 34.1(b). 

15 FOR THE COURT: 

16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk