09 -3 18 9-ag

Basra v. Holder BIA A078 725 336 A078 725 337 

### UNITE D STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY ORDER

RU LI NG S BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED O N ORA FT ERJAN UARY 1 , 20 07 , IS P ERMI TT ED AND I S GOVE RN ED B Y FE DE RAL RU LE 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 C ircuit 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’ 1 0 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 1 1 of the case. 1 2 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 1 3 abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales , 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d 1 4 Cir. 2006). When the BIA considers relevant evidence of 1 5 country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, we 1 6 review the BIA’s factual findings under the substantial 1 7 evidence standard. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 1 8 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). 1 9 An alien may file only one motion to reopen and must do 2 0 so within 90 days of the final administrative decision. 2 1 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is 2 2 no dispute that the Petitioners’ motion to reopen – filed3 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 1 0 continue to engage in various types of misconduct, there was 1 1 no indication that such conduct was aimed at Sikhs or pro1 2 Sikh groups, or that such problems did not exist prior to 1 3 the Petitioners’ departure from India in 1999. Thus, the 1 4 BIA reasonably found that the Petitioners’ submissions in 1 5 support of their motion to reopen reflected only “a 1 6 continuation of circumstances substantially similar to those 1 7 that existed at the time of [their] hearing with regard to 1 8 the treatment of Sikhs in India.” Moreover, the BIA 1 9 reasonably declined to afford any weight to letters from the 2 0 Petitioners’ friends and family given the similarities among 2 1 the letters and the lack of any details regarding why the 2 2 police visited their homes looking for the Petitioners. See4 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 well1 0 founded fear of future persecution, because the BIA 1 1 reasonably determined that they failed to meet the threshold 1 2 requirement of demonstrating changed country conditions that 1 3 would excuse the time limitation on their motion to reopen, 1 4 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), 1 6 (3). We therefore conclude that the BIA did not abuse its 1 7 discretion in denying the Petitioners’ untimely motion to 1 8 reopen. See Ali , 448 F.3d at 517. 1 9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 2 0 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 2 1 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 2 2 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in5 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