10-4577-ag Mir v. Holder BIA A079 693 932 

### 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.**  **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 December, two thousand eleven.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **GUIDO CALABRESI,** 7 **REENA RAGGI,** 8 **RICHARD C. WESLEY,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_______________________________________** 11 12 **ZAHEER MIR, AKA ZAHEERUDDIN BABER MIR,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 10-4577-ag** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent**.** 20

**______________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Alan Michael Strauss, New York, New** 23 **York.** 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney** 26 **General; Douglas E. Ginsburg,** 27 **Assistant Director; Katherine A.** 28 **Smith, Trial Attorney, Office of** 29 **Immigration Litigation, Civil** 30 **Division, United States Department** 31 **of Justice, Washington, D.C.** 32UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 3 is DENIED. 4 Zaheer Mir, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks 5 review of an October 15, 2010, order of the BIA denying his 6 motion to reopen. In re Zaheer Mir, No. A079 693 932 7 (B.I.A. Oct. 15, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity 8 with the underlying facts and procedural history of the 9

case. 10 We review the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen for 11 abuse of discretion. Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d 12 Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Because Mir’s motion to reopen was 13 untimely, he was required to establish changed country 14 conditions to except it from the time limit. See 8 U.S.C. 15 § 1229a(c)(7)(C). Contrary to Mir’s characterization, the 16 BIA unambiguously found that he did not establish changed 17 country conditions. That finding was supported by 18 substantial evidence. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 19 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008) (providing that this Court 20 reviews the agency’s factual findings regarding changed 21 country conditions under the substantial evidence standard). 22

2Mir presented the agency with some evidence suggesting 1 that there had been an increase in sectarian violence 2 against Shia Muslims in Pakistan between April 2008 and 3 December 2009. The BIA discussed this evidence, noting that 4 an intensification in violence couldconstitute changed 5 conditions, but reasonably concluded that Mir had not 6 demonstrated a material change in the risk faced by Sunni 7 Muslims sympathetic to and supportive of Shia Muslims. The 8 record supports this conclusion, as it indicates that the 9 violence in Pakistan has been a continuation of the violence 10 before April 2008 and any increase in the number of 11 civilians injured in that violence has been small compared 12 to Pakistan’s entire population. As the BIA noted, Mir did 13 not present evidence showing that his family, either the 14 Shia or Sunni members, had been harmed by the increased 15 violence. 16 Because the BIA discharged its duty of considering the 17 evidence and giving a reasoned explanation for why it did 18 not find changed country conditions, we defer to that 19 finding. See Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70, 78 (2d 20 Cir. 2005) (“When an applicant moves to reopen his case 21 based on worsened country conditions, and introduces 22

3previously unavailable reports that materially support his 1 original application, the BIA has a duty to consider these 2 reports and issue a reasoned decision based thereon, whether 3 or not these reports are clearly determinative.”); Jian Hui 4 Shao , 546 F.3d at 171 (“We do not ourselves attempt to 5 resolve conflicts in record evidence, a task largely within 6 the discretion of the agency.”). Accordingly the BIA did 7 not abuse its discretion in denying Mir’s motion as 8 untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C). 9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 11 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 12 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 13 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 14 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 15 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 16 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 17
FOR THE COURT: 18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 19 20 21

4