11-4789 BIA Buta v. Holder A074 855 818



### 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan** 2 **United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 31 st** **day of July, two thousand twelve.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **RALPH K. WINTER,** 7 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 8 **ROBERT D. SACK,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **ALEXANDRA BUTA,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 11-4789** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent**.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Charles Christophe, Christophe Law** 23 **Group, P.C., New York, NY.** 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant** 26 **Attorney General; Edward J. Duffy,** 27 **Senior Litigation Counsel; Zoe J.** 28 **Heller, Trial Attorney, Office of** 29 **Immigration Litigation, United** 30 **States Department of Justice,** 31 **Washington, D.C.** 32UPON 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 Alexandra Buta, a native and citizen of 5 Albania, seeks review of a November 7, 2011, decision of the 6 BIA denying her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. 7 In re Alexandra Buta, No. A074 855 818 (B.I.A. Nov. 7, 8 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 9 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 10 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 11 abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 12 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). An alien seeking to reopen 13 proceedings is required to file a motion to reopen no later 14 than 90 days after the date on which the final 15 administrative decision was rendered and is permitted to 16 file only one such motion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), 17 (C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is no dispute that 18 Buta’s second motion to reopen, filed in May 2011, was 19 untimely and number-barred, because the BIA issued a final 20 order of removal in November 2002. 21 Buta contends, however, that she established a material 22 change in conditions excusing the untimely and number-barred 23

2motion, based on an increase in violent attacks and human 1 trafficking targeting ethnic Greeks and members of the Greek 2 Orthodox religion in Albania. See 8 U.S.C. 3 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). 4 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that 5 conditions for ethnic Greeks and members of the Greek 6 Orthodox religion had not materially changed in Albania. 7 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 8 2008). While Buta argues that she established a material 9 increase in human trafficking through Dr. Bernd J. Fischer’s 10 statement, the BIA reasonably concluded that human 11 trafficking had been an ongoing problem since the time of 12 Buta’s 2000 merits hearing. See Xiao Ji Chen v. Dep’t of 13 Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that the 14 weight afforded to the applicant’s evidence in immigration 15 proceedings lies largely within the discretion of the 16 agency);see also In re S-Y-G- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 17 (B.I.A. 2007) (“In determining whether evidence accompanying 18 a motion to reopen demonstrates a material change in country 19 conditions that would justify reopening, [the BIA] compares 20 the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion 21 to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing 22

3below.”). Indeed, the BIA explicitly noted that Dr. 1 Fischer’s statement – which discussed a 2000 report from the 2 Albanian government noting that 30,000 Albanian sex workers 3 were then working abroad – indicated that human trafficking 4 had been an ongoing problem since at least 2000. 5 While Buta takes issue with the BIA’s determination 6 that Dr. Fischer’s statement reflected a continuation rather 7 than a material increase in human trafficking, where, as 8 here, the BIA’s inference “is tethered to the evidentiary 9 record, we will accord deference to the finding.” See Siewe 10 v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2007) (finding 11 that “support for a contrary inference – even one more 12 plausible or more natural – does not suggest error”). 13 Moreover, although Buta asserts that the BIA erred in 14 finding that there was no evidence that ethnic Greeks or 15 members of the Greek Orthodox religion are targeted for 16 human trafficking in Albania, she has failed to specifically 17 identify any evidence allegedly overlooked by the BIA.See 18 Xiao Ji Chen, 471 F.3d at 337 n.17 (presuming that the 19 agency “has taken into account all of the evidence before 20 [it], unless the record compellingly suggests otherwise”); 21 see alsoFed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (An appellant’s opening 22 brief must contain the “appellant’s contentions and the 23 reasons for them.”). 24 4Similarly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in 1 finding that Buta failed to demonstrate a material change in 2 country conditions on the basis of the her evidence 3 discussing the 2010 killing of ethnic Greek Aristotelis 4
Goumas. See Xiao Ji Chen, 471 F.3d at 342. In considering 5 this evidence, the BIA reasonably found that it was 6 inconclusive as to the cause of Goumas’s death. Indeed, 7 Buta’s evidence stated that an expert’s investigation had 8 found that Goumas was killed in a car accident, which he 9 caused. We will accord deference to the finding. See 10 Siewe, 480 F.3d at 168-69. 11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 13 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 14 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 15 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 16 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 17 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 18 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 19
FOR THE COURT: 20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 21 22 23

5