11-1012-ag Uddin v. Holder BIA Gordon-Uruakpa, IJ A095 122 492 

### 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 FE DERAL 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan** 2 **United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New** 3 **York, on the 26 th** **day of April, two thousand twelve.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 7 **RICHARD C. WESLEY,** 8 **SUSAN L. CARNEY,** 9 Circuit Judges **.** 10

**_________________________________________** 11 12 **NASIR UDDIN,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 11-1012-ag** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_________________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Usman B. Ahmad, Law Offices of Usman B.** 23 **Ahmad, P.C., Long Island City, New** 24 **York.** 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney General;** 27 **Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director;** 28 **Imran R. Zaidi, Trial Attorney, Office** 29 **of Immigration Litigation, United** 30 **States Department of Justice,** 31 **Washington, D.C.** 322 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review 3 is DENIED. 4 Petitioner Nasir Uddin, a native and citizen of 5 Bangladesh, seeks review of a February 24, 2011 decision of 6 the BIA affirming the October 5, 2009 decision of Immigration 7 Judge (“IJ”) Vivienne E. Gordon-Uruakpa denying his motion to 8

reopen. In re Nasir Uddin , No. A095 122 492 (B.I.A. Feb. 24, 9 2011), aff’g No. A095 122 492 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 5, 10 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 11 facts and procedural history of the case, which we reference 12 only as necessary to explain our decision. 13 We have considered both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions. 14 See Yan Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). 15 We review the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse 16 of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir. 17 2005) (per curiam). 18 An alien seeking to reopen proceedings may file only one 19 motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the date on which 20 the final administrative decision was rendered. See 8 U.S.C. 21 § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C). Uddin concedes that his August 2009 223 motion to reopen, filed more than six years after the entry of 1 his December 2002 final order of removal, was untimely. To 2 overcome this limitation, Uddin was required to demonstrate 3 changed country conditions material to his asylum application. 4 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). The agency reasonably concluded 5 that he failed to do so. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,546 6 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008) (reviewing the agency’s 7 determination of changed country conditions for substantial 8 evidence). 9 As the agency reasonably found, Uddin’s evidence – a 10 2008 Human Rights Report, an affidavit describing his family’s 11 involvement in the Awami League, and articles generally 12 describing conditions in Bangladesh – did not establish a 13 change in country conditions material to his claim for relief. 14 Uddin offered no evidence to support his general claims that 15 his affiliation with the Awami League would lead to 16 persecution or violence at the hands of the other political 17 factions. Further, as Uddin concedes, the Awami League is 18 currently the ruling party in Bangladesh, and has been since 19 December 2008. Because the agency reasonably determined that 20 Uddin failed to establish a material change in country 21 conditions, it did not abuse its discretion by denying his 224 motion as untimely. See8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), (ii); 1 Jian Hui Shao,546 F.3d at 169. Accordingly, we need not 2 reach Uddin’s argument that he is prima facie eligible for 3 relief. 4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 5 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 6 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 7 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 8 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in 9 this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 10 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 11 34(b). 12
FOR THE COURT: 13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 14

15