18

- 2147 Hassan v. Rosen BIA A 0 7 6 245 797 

### 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**  **ELECTR ONIC 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Mar**  **shall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,**  3 **on the 22**  **nd da**  **y of January**  **, two thousand twenty**  **- o**  **ne .**  4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,** 7 **Chief Judge ,**  8 **PIERRE N. LEVAL ,**  9 **RICHARD J. SULLIVAN ,**  10 **Circuit Judges.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **NASRIN HASSAN ,**  14 **Petitioner ,**  15 16
**v. 18** 
**- 2147**  17 **NAC** 18 **JEFFREY A. ROSEN ,**  **UNITED STATES** 19 **ATTORNEY GENERAL ,**  20 **Respondent .**  ***** 21 22

**_____________________________________** 23 24 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Lawrence Spivak , Esq., Jamaica , 25 N

. Y

. 26 27 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General ; Cindy S. Ferrier , 29

* Pursuant to Fed R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Jeffrey A. Rosen is automatically substituted for former Attorney General William P. Barr.2 Assistant Director; Micah Engler , 1 Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation , United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, D

. C. 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 petitio n for review 9

is DENIED

. 10

Petitioner Nasrin Hassan , a native and citizen of 11
Bangladesh, seeks review of a July 3, 2018 , decision of the 12

BIA denying her motion to reopen

. In re Hassan , No. A 07 6 13

245 797 (B.I.A. July 3 , 201 8 )

. We assume the parties’ 14
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 15

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

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

2006). When the agency considers relevant evidence of 18

count ry conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, we review 19

its factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. 20
See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 21

2008). 223 An alien seeking to reopen proceedings may file only one 1

motion to reo pen no later than 90 days after the final 2

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

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). However, the time and number limits 4
do not apply if the motion is filed in order to apply for 5
asylum “based on changed country conditions arising in the 6
country of nationality . . . if such evidence is material and 7

was not available and would not have been discovered or 8
presented at the previous proceeding .” 8 U.S.C. 9

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). 10
Motions to reopen are disfavored, and a movant bears the 11
burden of demonstrating that the “new evidence offered would 12
likely change the result in the case.” In re S

- Y

- G

- , 24 I. 13

& N. Dec. 247, 251

– 52 (B

. I

. A

. 2007) (quoting In re Coelho , 20 14

I

. & N

. Dec. 464, 473 (B

. I

. A

. 1992) )

. 15
Hassan’s January 2018 motion was number

- barred because 16
it was her second motion, and it was untimely because she 17

filed the motion over eight years after the BIA’s September 18
2009 decision affirming her final order of removal. And 19

c ontrary to Hassan’s argument that the se bar s should not apply 20
to her because she was a derivative beneficiary of her 214 husband’s application, her status as a derivative beneficiary 1
does not implicate any of the exceptions to the time and 2

number limitations

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

C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) (listing exceptions). 4
To the extent that Hassan based her motion to reopen on 5

abuse that she suffered at the hands of her in

- laws, the BIA 6
did not err in concluding that any such abuse predated 7

Hassan’s arrival i n the United States and thu s did not reflect 8
a change in conditions for reope ning. Hassan could have 9

raised this claim in the proceedings before the immigration 10
judge which concluded in 2007. See 8 U.S.C. 11

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

. 12

Next, a ssuming arguendo that Hassan’s all egations 13
regarding her brother c ould otherwise support a motion to 14

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

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

case.” In re Hassan , No. A 076 245 79 7 , at 2. Hassan stated 17
for the first time in connection with the present motion her 18

fear of abuse from her brother and local authorities 19
purportedly under his sway. However, because she did not 20
present “objective” evidence supporting this claim, and 215 because she failed to raise it in any prior proceeding, 1
including her 2017 motion to reopen, id. , the BIA did not 2
abuse its discretion in concluding that the new evidence would 3

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

20 I. & N. Dec. at 473. 5
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 6

DENIED and the BIA’s decision is AFFIRMED

. All pending 7
motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED. 8

FOR THE COURT: 9 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe, 10 Clerk of Court 11