14-1174 Singh v. Lynch BIA A096 200 156 

### 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 TO 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 for**  1 **the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States** 2 **Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the** 3 **17 th**  **day of September, two thousand fifteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **REENA RAGGI,** 7 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,** 8 **DENNY CHIN,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **GURJIT SINGH,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 14-1174** 16 **NAC** 17 **LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.*** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Gurjit Singh, Pro se, Plainfield, 23 Indiana. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Greg D. Mack, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Hillel R. 28

* Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)( 2), Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.2 Smith, Attorney, Office of 1 Immigration Litigation, Washington, 2 D.C. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 7

DENIED. 8 Petitioner Gurjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, 9 seeks review of a March 19, 2014, decision of the BIA denying 10 his second motion to reopen. In re Gurjit Singh, No. A096 200 11 156 (B.I.A. Mar. 19, 2014). We review the BIA’s denial of a 12 motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales , 448 13 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). We assume the 14 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 15 history in this case. 16 An alien seeking to reopen proceedings may file a motion 17 to reopen no later than 90 days after the date on which the final 18 administrative decision was rendered. 8 U.S.C. 19 §§ 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is 20 no dispute that Singh’s 2014 motion to reopen is untimely (and 21 number barred) because the BIA issued a final order of removal 22 in November 2009 and it was Singh’s second motion. Although 233 these limitations do not apply if the motion “is based on changed 1 country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the 2 country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is 3 material and was not available and would not have been 4 discovered or presented at the previous proceeding,” 8 U.S.C. 5 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), we 6 find no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s conclusion that Singh 7 failed to make the required showing. 8 The BIA’s determination that Singh failed to establish a 9 material change in country conditions is supported by 10 substantial evidence in the record; therefore, the BIA did not 11 abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen. Jian 12 Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). Singh’s 13 allegation that police continued to look for him based on his 14 political activities is the same situation alleged at his 2007 15 merits hearing. Norani v. Gonzales , 451 F.3d 292, 294 (2d Cir. 16 2006). Because Singh’s underlying asylum application was 17 denied on credibility grounds, this reiteration of his claim 18 is insufficient to warrant reopening. Kaur v. BIA , 413 F.3d 19 232, 234 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam); see also Qin Wen Zheng 20

v. Gonzales , 500 F.3d 143, 147 (2d Cir. 2007). 214 Nor was the BIA required to credit Singh’s affidavit 1 evidence of two recent raids on his family’s home as both 2 affidavits also relied on the incidents proffered to support 3 his original application, for which he was found not credible. 4

Kaur , 413 F.3d at 234; see also Qin Wen Zheng , 500 F.3d at 147. 5 And, Singh’s country conditions evidence does not 6 establish changed conditions. Singh submitted the State 7 Department’s 2012 Country Report, which reflects ongoing 8 arbitrary arrests, detentions, and extrajudicial killings, but 9 makes no mention of an increase in these activities in 10 comparison to prior years. Moreover, the 2006 State Department 11 Report, in evidence at Singh’s 2007 merits hearing, documents 12 incidents of police torture and extrajudicial killings similar 13 to those in the 2012 Report and, thus, does not support a finding 14 of changed conditions. See In re S-Y-G- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 15 253 (B.I.A. 2007) (“In determining whether evidence . . . 16 demonstrates a material change in country conditions . . . [the 17 BIA] compare[s] the evidence of country conditions submitted 18 with the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits 19 hearing below.”). 20

215 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, any stay of removal 2 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 3 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 4 is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in 5 this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 6 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and S econd Circuit Local Rule 7 34.1(b). 8

FOR THE COURT: 9 Catherine O = Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 10