2012 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

7-6-2012 

# M ehmet K o se v . Att y Ge n U S A

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 11-3735

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2012 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" M e hme t Kos e v

. Att y Ge n U SA" (2012). 2012 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 747. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012/747

### NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 11

- 3735

___________ MEHMET KOSE ,

Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES , Respondent

____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an O rder of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A073

- 168

- 616 ) Immigration Judge: Honorable Alberto J. Riefkohl

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

July 2, 2012 Before: FUENTES, JORDAN and VAN ANTWERP EN , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : July 6, 2012 )

___________ OPINION

___________ PER CURIAM Mehmet Kose petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). For the reasons below, we will deny the petition for review. Kose, a native of Tu rkey, entered the United States in 1989 as a crewman. In March 2000, he was placed in removal proceeding s, and an Immigration Judge denied his

### 2

application for adjustment of status . The BIA dismissed his appeal . In 2005, he filed a motion to reopen befor e the BIA which was denied. In July 2011, he filed another motion to reopen with the BIA in which he argued that there were changed country conditions in Turkey. The BIA denied the motion to reopen as untimely, and Kose filed a timely petition for review

. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. Filja v. Gonzales , 447 F.3d 241, 251 (3d Cir. 2006). Under this standard, we may reverse the BIA’s decision only if it is “arbitrary, i rrational, or contrary to law.” Sevoian v. Ashcroft , 290 F.3d 166, 174 (3d Cir. 2002). An alien generally may file only one motion to reopen, and must file the motion with the BIA “no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative de cision was rendered.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The time and number requirements are waived for motions that rely on material evidence of changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3). We must uphold the BIA’s fact ual determinations if they are supported by substantial evidence. Liu v. Att’y Gen. , 555 F.3d 145, 148 (3d Cir. 2009). Under that standard, we can reject the BIA’s findings only if “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrar y.” Id. ( quoting INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)).
Kose argues that members of his religion, the Alevi faith, are denied building permits and that discriminatory laws re strict their ability to operate houses of worship in Turkey

. He cont ends that the refusal of building permi ts and the lack of recognition by the Turkish government constitutes persecution. He asserts that these policies leave

### 3

Alevis unable to practice their religion. I n his petition for review, however, Kose admitted th at Alevis are permitted to practice their faith. The BIA noted that there were efforts by the Turkish government to find peaceful solutions to the griev ances of Alevis

. Kose also refers, without citation, to evidence of tensions between Alevis and
Sunn i Muslims. The BIA acknowledged Kose’s evidence of the influx of Sunni Muslim refugees from Syria and incidents of violence bet ween Alevis and Sunni Muslims. It observed that those isolated incidents occurred in southeastern Turkey while Kose was from no rthwestern Turkey. Kose does not challenge the BIA’s finding. In one sentence at the end of his brief, Kose asserts that he has submitted substantial evidence that his marriage to a Sunni woman will lead to persecution. The BIA observed that Kose had no t offered evidence to support his claim that he would be persecuted for being in a mixed marriage. Kose has not shown that the re cord compels a contrary finding; in fact, he has not pointed to any evidence in the record to support t his undeveloped argumen t. The BIA concluded that Kose’s evidence did not show a material change in the conditions in Turkey. Kose has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion denying his motion to reopen. For the above reasons, we wi ll deny the petition for review