IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60633

Summary Calendar 

LABINOT KURTAJ, 

Petitioner 

v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent 

- 

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals 

BIA No. A099 653 543 

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Labinot Kurtaj petitions for review of the denial by the Board of 

Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) of his second motion to reopen his removal 

proceedings as untimely. He argues that his motion was not untimely because 

he presented evidence of changed circumstances arising in his native Kosovo

material to his claim for asylum and related relief that was not available and 

could not have been discovered or presented at his 2007 removal hearing. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 25, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60633 Document: 00513967291 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/25/2017
No. 15-60633

2 

“The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion 

and its factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence.” Panjwani v. 

Gonzales, 401 F.3d 626, 632 (5th Cir. 2005). A party may file only one motion 

to reopen deportation proceedings, which must be filed no later than 90 days 

after the date on which the final administrative decision was entered in the 

proceeding sought to be reopened. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). However, the time 

and numerical limitations for the filing of motion to reopen do not apply to 

motions that seek either to apply or to reapply “for asylum or withholding of 

deportation based on changed circumstances arising in the country of 

nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such 

evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered 

or presented at the previous hearing.” § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). “In determining 

whether there has been a material change in country conditions, the BIA 

compares the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to 

those that existed at the time of the merits hearing below.” Zhenghao Liu v. 

Holder, 457 F. App’x 446, 447 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks 

omitted) (citing In re S-Y-G, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2007)). 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Kurtaj’s 

evidence, considered cumulatively with the evidence previously submitted, did 

not show that conditions in Kosovo changed materially to his claim for asylum.

See Panjwani, 401 F.3d at 626. His claim was based solely on his allegation 

that his life was threatened because he was a witness to a murder. His prior 

testimony attempting to link those threats to his political opinion was deemed 

not credible. Because the threats of harm were not based on Kurtaj’s political 

opinion, the evidence he adduced of changes in the political climate in Kosovo 

is immaterial to his claim for asylum and did not entitle him to reopening. See

§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). 

 Case: 15-60633 Document: 00513967291 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/25/2017
No. 15-60633

3 

Substantial evidence further supports the BIA’s decision that the 

documentation Kurtaj adduced described circumstances in Kosovo similar to 

those that existed at the time of his removal hearing, with no material change. 

See Panjwani, 401 F.3d at 626; § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Finally, the BIA’s 

determination that his affidavits did not warrant reopening is supported by 

prior evidence that his attempt to inject a political dimension into his asylum 

claim was not credible. In light of the preceding, Kurtaj has not shown an 

abuse of discretion on the part of the BIA in denying his motion as untimely. 

See § 1003.2(c)(1); Panjwani, 401 F.3d at 632. We therefore do not reach the 

issue whether he has demonstrated prima facie eligibility for asylum and 

related relief based on a well-founded fear of persecution if removed to Kosovo. 

PETITION DENIED. 

 

 Case: 15-60633 Document: 00513967291 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/25/2017