13-1770 Kraja v. Holder BIA A095 837 722 

## 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 1 

### for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United 2 

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

### on the 23**rd**

### day of June, two thousand fourteen. 4 5 

### PRESENT: 6 

### JON O. NEWMAN, 7 

### RICHARD C. WESLEY, 8 

### GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 

### Circuit Judges**.** 10



### _____________________________________ 11 12 

### EREN KRAJA, 13 

### Petitioner**,** 14 15 

### v. 13-1770 16 

### NAC 17 

### ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 18 

### ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 

### Respondent **.** 20



### _____________________________________ 21 22 

### FOR PETITIONER: Michael P. Diraimondo, Melville, New 23 

### York. 24 25 

### FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney 26 

### General; Francis W. Fraser, Senior 27 

### Litigation Counsel; Jacob A. 28 

### Bashyrov, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 

### Immigration Litigation, United 30 

### States Department of Justice, 31 

### Washington, D.C. 32

### UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 

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

### hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for 3 

### review is DENIED. 4 

### Eren Kraja, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks 5 

### review of an April 8, 2013, decision of the BIA denying his 6 

### motion to reopen. In re Eren Kraja , No. A095 837 722 7 

### (B.I.A. Apr. 8, 2013). It is undisputed that Kraja’s motion 8 

### was untimely because it was filed approximately nine years 9 

### after the agency’s final order of removal. See8 U.S.C. 10 

### § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). However, “[t]here is no time limit on 11 

### the filing of a motion to reopen . . . based on changed 12 

### country conditions arising in the country of nationality or 13 

### the country to which removal has been ordered, if such 14 

### evidence is material and was not available . . . at the 15 

### previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). 16 

### An alien seeking to have an administrative decision 17 

### reopened on this basis bears the “‘heavy burden’ of 18 

### demonstrating that the proffered new evidence would likely 19 

### alter the result in [his] case.” Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 20 

### 138, 168 (2d Cir. 2008). We review the BIA’s decision on 21 

### this point only for abuse of discretion. Id. After 22 

### considering the record, we find no error in the BIA’s 23


### 2

### determination that Kraja failed to meet his burden

. 1 

### Moreover, Kraja’s claim that the BIA did not consider all of 2 

### his evidence is untrue. Kraja does not identify what 3 

### evidence he believes the BIA failed to consider and the 4 

### BIA’s decision specifically discusses all of the exhibits 5 

### Kraja provided. 6 

### For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 7



### DENIED. 8


### FOR THE COURT: 9 

### Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 10 11 12



### 3