10-3088-ag Drejaj v. Holder BIA A098 212 429 

### 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 E** **ITHER 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 20 th** **day of May, two thousand eleven.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **ROBERT A. KATZMANN,** 7 **RICHARD C. WESLEY,** 8 **DENNY CHIN,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_______________________________________** 11 12 **ARBEN DREJAJ,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 10-3088-ag** 16 **NAC** 17 18 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 19 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 Respondent**.** 21

**_______________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New** 24 **York.** 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney** 27 **General; Jennifer Paisner Williams,** 28 **Senior Litigation Counsel; Tiffany** 29 **L. Walters, Trial Attorney, Office** 30 **of Immigration Litigation, Civil** 31 **Division, United States Department** 32 **of Justice, Washington, D.C.** 331 We denied Drejaj’s petition for review of the BIA’s June 2008 decision. Drejaj v. Holder, 336 Fed. Appx. 102 (2d Cir. 2009).
2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is 2 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for 3 review is DENIED. 4 Arben Drejaj, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks 5 review of a July 16, 2010, order of the BIA denying his 6 motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Arben 7 Drejaj , No. A098 221 429 (B.I.A. July 16, 2010). We assume 8 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 9 procedural history of the 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, 12 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). An alien who has been 13 ordered removed may file one motion to reopen, but must do 14 so within 90 days of the final administrative decision. 8 15 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7). Here, the BIA did not abuse its 16 discretion by denying Drejaj’s motion to reopen as untimely, 17 as his motion was filed in January 2010, more than one year 18 after the entry of his June 2008 final order of removal. See 19 id. ; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). 1 203 Although the time limitation may be excepted upon a 1 showing of changed country conditions, the BIA’s 2 determination that Drejaj failed to make such a showing is 3 supported by substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7). 4 As an initial matter, the BIA properly examined whether 5 country conditions had changed between the time of Drejaj’s 6 merits hearing and the submission of his motion to reopen. 7 See Matter of S-Y-G- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007) 8 (holding that “[i]n determining whether evidence 9 accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates a material 10 change in country conditions that would justify reopening, 11 we compare the evidence of country conditions submitted with 12 the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits 13 hearing below”). Further, the BIA’s initial decision is not 14 inconsistent with its denial of reopening. The BIA reversed 15 the IJ’s grant of asylum because conditions in Albania had 16 improved since Drejaj arrived in the United States in 2004, 17 whereas the BIA in its July 2010 decision found that the 18 conditions in Albania had not materially worsened since the 19 2006 merits hearing. 20

21

224 Moreover, the BIA reasonably concluded that Drejaj 1 failed to establish changed conditions in Albania. The 2 evidence Drejaj submitted in support of his motion indicated 3 continuing sectarian conflict in Albania. However, Drejaj 4 failed to point to evidence in the record establishing a 5 materialchange, as the background documentation submitted 6 in support of his original application provided similar 7 information regarding sectarian violence in Albania. See 8 Matter of S-Y-G- , 24 I. & N. Dec. at 253. Therefore, 9 substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that 10 Drejaj failed to establish changed country conditions. See 11 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7), 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(2), 12 (c)(3)(ii); see also Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 13 169 (2d Cir. 2008) (holding that when the BIA considers 14 relevant evidence of country conditions in evaluating a 15 motion to reopen, this Court reviews the BIA’s factual 16 findings under the substantial evidence standard). 17 Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in 18 appraising the evidence Drejaj submitted. As Drejaj fails 19 to offer any reasons explaining why the BIA erred, we defer 20 to the agency’s evaluation of the documentary evidence. 21 Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 22 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (finding that the weight afforded to the 235 applicant’s evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely 1 within the discretion of the agency). Also contrary to 2 Drejaj’s position, a reasonable fact-finder would not be 3 compelled to conclude that the BIA ignored any material 4 evidence. See Jian Hui Shao , 546 F.3d at 169 (this Court 5 has rejected the notion that the BIA must “expressly parse 6 or refute on the record each individual argument or piece of 7 evidence offered by the petitioner”). Rather, the BIA 8 considered the evidence in some detail, explicitly citing to 9 the record and finding that the evidence was similar to that 10 submitted in his earlier proceedings. 11 Because the BIA reasonably concluded that Drejaj failed 12 to demonstrate a change in country conditions, the BIA did 13 not abuse its discretion in denying Drejaj’s motion to 14 reopen as untimely. 8 C.F.R. §§ 10003.2(c)(2), (c)(3)(ii). 15 Accordingly, we do not reach Drejaj’s argument that he is 16 prima facieeligible for relief. See8 U.S.C. 17 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). 18 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 19 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 20 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 21 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 22 this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for 236 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 1 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 2 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 3 4 FOR THE COURT: 5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 6 7