09-3189-ag

Basra v. Holder

BIA

A078 725 336

A078 725 337

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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

4 New York, on the 29 day of September, two thousand ten. th

5

6 PRESENT:

7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

8 ROBERT D. SACK,

9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 ______________________________________

12

13 HARINDER SINGH BASRA, HARVINDER

14 KAUR BASRA

15 Petitioners, 

16 09-3189-ag

17 v. NAC

18

19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

21 Respondent.

22 ______________________________________

23

24 FOR PETITIONERS: Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, New

25 York.

26

27 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney

28 General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant

29 Director; Elizabeth Young, Trial

30 Attorney, Office of Immigration

31 Litigation, United States Department

32 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
2

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

4 is DENIED.

5 Petitioners, Harinder Singh Basra and Harvinder Kaur

6 Basra, natives and citizens of India, seek review of a July

7 7, 2009, order of the BIA denying their motion to reopen

8 their removal proceedings. In re Basra, Nos. A078 725

9 336/337 (B.I.A. July 7, 2009). We assume the parties’

10 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history

11 of the case.

12 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for

13 abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d

14 Cir. 2006). When the BIA considers relevant evidence of

15 country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, we

16 review the BIA’s factual findings under the substantial

17 evidence standard. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d

18 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). 

19 An alien may file only one motion to reopen and must do

20 so within 90 days of the final administrative decision. 

21 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is

22 no dispute that the Petitioners’ motion to reopen – filed
3

1 over four years after the BIA issued a final order in their

2 case – was untimely. However, these limitations do not

3 apply if the alien establishes materially changed

4 circumstances arising in the country of nationality. 

5 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). 

6 The BIA reasonably found that the Petitioners did not

7 establish changed country conditions excusing the time

8 limitation on their motion to reopen. Although the

9 Petitioners assert that Indian police and security forces

10 continue to engage in various types of misconduct, there was

11 no indication that such conduct was aimed at Sikhs or pro12 Sikh groups, or that such problems did not exist prior to

13 the Petitioners’ departure from India in 1999. Thus, the

14 BIA reasonably found that the Petitioners’ submissions in

15 support of their motion to reopen reflected only “a

16 continuation of circumstances substantially similar to those

17 that existed at the time of [their] hearing with regard to

18 the treatment of Sikhs in India.” Moreover, the BIA

19 reasonably declined to afford any weight to letters from the

20 Petitioners’ friends and family given the similarities among

21 the letters and the lack of any details regarding why the

22 police visited their homes looking for the Petitioners. See
4

1 Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d

2 Cir. 2006); cf. Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 489

3 F.3d 517, 519 (2d Cir. 2007) (finding that when two

4 documents allegedly provided by different persons “are

5 strikingly similar in their structure or language,” an IJ

6 may “treat those similarities as evidence supporting an

7 adverse credibility finding.”). 

8 Although the Petitioners additionally argue that the

9 BIA impermissibly declined to analyze their claim of a well10 founded fear of future persecution, because the BIA

11 reasonably determined that they failed to meet the threshold

12 requirement of demonstrating changed country conditions that

13 would excuse the time limitation on their motion to reopen,

14 it was under no obligation to analyze that claim. 

15 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2),

16 (3). We therefore conclude that the BIA did not abuse its

17 discretion in denying the Petitioners’ untimely motion to

18 reopen. See Ali, 448 F.3d at 517.

19 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

20 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

21 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

22 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
5

1 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

2 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

3 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second

4 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

5 FOR THE COURT: 

6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

7

8

9

10