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.

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

New York, on the 20th 4 day of December, two thousand eleven.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 GUIDO CALABRESI,

8 REENA RAGGI,

9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _______________________________________

12

13 ZAHEER MIR, AKA ZAHEERUDDIN BABER MIR,

14 Petitioner, 

15

16 v. 10-4577-ag

17 NAC 

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 ______________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Alan Michael Strauss, New York, New

24 York.

25

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney

27 General; Douglas E. Ginsburg,

28 Assistant Director; Katherine A.

29 Smith, Trial Attorney, Office of

30 Immigration Litigation, Civil

31 Division, United States Department

32 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
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 Zaheer Mir, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks

6 review of an October 15, 2010, order of the BIA denying his

7 motion to reopen. In re Zaheer Mir, No. A079 693 932

8 (B.I.A. Oct. 15, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity

9 with the underlying facts and procedural history of the

10 case. 

11 We review the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen for

12 abuse of discretion. Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d

13 Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Because Mir’s motion to reopen was

14 untimely, he was required to establish changed country

15 conditions to except it from the time limit. See 8 U.S.C.

16 § 1229a(c)(7)(C). Contrary to Mir’s characterization, the

17 BIA unambiguously found that he did not establish changed

18 country conditions. That finding was supported by

19 substantial evidence. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546

20 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008) (providing that this Court

21 reviews the agency’s factual findings regarding changed

22 country conditions under the substantial evidence standard).

2
1 Mir presented the agency with some evidence suggesting

2 that there had been an increase in sectarian violence

3 against Shia Muslims in Pakistan between April 2008 and

4 December 2009. The BIA discussed this evidence, noting that

5 an intensification in violence could constitute changed

6 conditions, but reasonably concluded that Mir had not

7 demonstrated a material change in the risk faced by Sunni

8 Muslims sympathetic to and supportive of Shia Muslims. The

9 record supports this conclusion, as it indicates that the

10 violence in Pakistan has been a continuation of the violence

11 before April 2008 and any increase in the number of

12 civilians injured in that violence has been small compared

13 to Pakistan’s entire population. As the BIA noted, Mir did

14 not present evidence showing that his family, either the

15 Shia or Sunni members, had been harmed by the increased

16 violence. 

17 Because the BIA discharged its duty of considering the

18 evidence and giving a reasoned explanation for why it did

19 not find changed country conditions, we defer to that

20 finding. See Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70, 78 (2d

21 Cir. 2005) (“When an applicant moves to reopen his case

22 based on worsened country conditions, and introduces

3
1 previously unavailable reports that materially support his

2 original application, the BIA has a duty to consider these

3 reports and issue a reasoned decision based thereon, whether

4 or not these reports are clearly determinative.”); Jian Hui

5 Shao, 546 F.3d at 171 (“We do not ourselves attempt to

6 resolve conflicts in record evidence, a task largely within

7 the discretion of the agency.”). Accordingly the BIA did

8 not abuse its discretion in denying Mir’s motion as

9 untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C). 

10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

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

12 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

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

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

15 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

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

17 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

18 FOR THE COURT: 

19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

20

21

4