18-2147

Hassan v. Rosen

BIA

A076 245 797

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, 

on the 22nd 4 day of January, two thousand twenty-one.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,

8 Chief Judge,

9 PIERRE N. LEVAL,

10 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,

11 Circuit Judges.

12 _____________________________________

13

14 NASRIN HASSAN,

15 Petitioner,

16

17 v. 18-2147

18 NAC

19 JEFFREY A. ROSEN, UNITED STATES

20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

21 Respondent.*

22

23 _____________________________________

24

25 FOR PETITIONER: Lawrence Spivak, Esq., Jamaica, 

26 N.Y.

27

28 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 

29 Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier, 

* Pursuant to Fed R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Jeffrey A. Rosen is automatically 

substituted for former Attorney General William P. Barr.
2

1 Assistant Director; Micah Engler, 

2 Trial Attorney, Office of 

3 Immigration Litigation, United 

4 States Department of Justice, 

5 Washington, D.C.

6

7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 

10 is DENIED.

11 Petitioner Nasrin Hassan, a native and citizen of 

12 Bangladesh, seeks review of a July 3, 2018, decision of the 

13 BIA denying her motion to reopen. In re Hassan, No. A 076

14 245 797 (B.I.A. July 3, 2018). We assume the parties’ 

15 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

16 We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of 

17 discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 

18 2006). When the agency considers relevant evidence of 

19 country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, we review

20 its factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. 

21 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 

22 2008).
3

1 An alien seeking to reopen proceedings may file only one 

2 motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the final 

3 administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 

4 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). However, the time and number limits 

5 do not apply if the motion is filed in order to apply for 

6 asylum “based on changed country conditions arising in the 

7 country of nationality . . . if such evidence is material and 

8 was not available and would not have been discovered or 

9 presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. 

10 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). 

11 Motions to reopen are disfavored, and a movant bears the 

12 burden of demonstrating that the “new evidence offered would 

13 likely change the result in the case.” In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. 

14 & N. Dec. 247, 251–52 (B.I.A. 2007) (quoting In re Coelho, 20 

15 I. & N. Dec. 464, 473 (B.I.A. 1992)).

16 Hassan’s January 2018 motion was number-barred because 

17 it was her second motion, and it was untimely because she

18 filed the motion over eight years after the BIA’s September 

19 2009 decision affirming her final order of removal. And 

20 contrary to Hassan’s argument that these bars should not apply 

21 to her because she was a derivative beneficiary of her 
4

1 husband’s application, her status as a derivative beneficiary 

2 does not implicate any of the exceptions to the time and 

3 number limitations. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 

4 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) (listing exceptions).

5 To the extent that Hassan based her motion to reopen on 

6 abuse that she suffered at the hands of her in-laws, the BIA 

7 did not err in concluding that any such abuse predated 

8 Hassan’s arrival in the United States and thus did not reflect 

9 a change in conditions for reopening. Hassan could have 

10 raised this claim in the proceedings before the immigration 

11 judge which concluded in 2007. See 8 U.S.C. 

12 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

13 Next, assuming arguendo that Hassan’s allegations 

14 regarding her brother could otherwise support a motion to 

15 reopen, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding

16 that this evidence “would not likely change the result in the 

17 case.” In re Hassan, No. A 076 245 797, at 2. Hassan stated 

18 for the first time in connection with the present motion her 

19 fear of abuse from her brother and local authorities 

20 purportedly under his sway. However, because she did not 

21 present “objective” evidence supporting this claim, and 
5

1 because she failed to raise it in any prior proceeding, 

2 including her 2017 motion to reopen, id., the BIA did not 

3 abuse its discretion in concluding that the new evidence would 

4 not likely change the result on the merits. See In re Coelho, 

5 20 I. & N. Dec. at 473.

6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

7 DENIED and the BIA’s decision is AFFIRMED. All pending 

8 motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

9 FOR THE COURT: 

10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 

11 Clerk of Court