2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-6-2012

Mehmet Kose v. Atty Gen USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-3735

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2012 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Mehmet Kose v. Atty Gen USA" (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 747.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 Order 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 ANTWERPEN, 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 Turkey, entered the United States in 1989 as a crewman. In 

March 2000, he was placed in removal proceedings, 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 before 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, irrational, 

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 decision 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 factual 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 contrary.” 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 restrict their ability to operate houses of worship in 

Turkey. He contends that the refusal of building permits and the lack of recognition by 

the Turkish government constitutes persecution. He asserts that these policies leave 
3

Alevis unable to practice their religion. In his petition for review, however, Kose 

admitted that Alevis are permitted to practice their faith. The BIA noted that there were 

efforts by the Turkish government to find peaceful solutions to the grievances of Alevis. 

Kose also refers, without citation, to evidence of tensions between Alevis and 

Sunni Muslims. The BIA acknowledged Kose’s evidence of the influx of Sunni Muslim 

refugees from Syria and incidents of violence between Alevis and Sunni Muslims. It 

observed that those isolated incidents occurred in southeastern Turkey while Kose was 

from northwestern 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 not offered evidence to support his claim that he would be 

persecuted for being in a mixed marriage. Kose has not shown that the record compels a 

contrary finding; in fact, he has not pointed to any evidence in the record to support this

undeveloped argument.

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 will deny the petition for review