18

- 3388 Hadj Djelloul v. Garland BIA A 076 101 378 

### 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 TO 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**  **Thurgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 1**  **4 t**  **h da**  **y of M**  **a y**  **, two thousand twenty** 

**- one** 
**.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON ,**  7 **C hief**  **Judge ,**  8 **SUSAN L. CARNEY ,**  9 **RICHARD J. SULLI V**  **AN ,**  10 **Circuit Judges.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **MEHDI HADJ DJELLOUL ,**  14 **Petitioner ,**  15 16
**v. 18** 

**- 3388**  17 **NAC** 18 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 19 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL**  **,** 20 **Respondent**

**. 1**  21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Alexis Ann Dutt, Esq., Karam Law, 24 Bloomington, MN

. 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Jessica E. Burns , Senior 27 Litigation Counsel ; Claire L. 28 Workman , Senior Litigation 29

1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent.2 Counsel , Office of Immigration 1 Litigation , United States 2 Department of Justice, Washington, 3 DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 8

is DENIED. 9

Petitioner Mehdi Hadj Djelloul , a native and citizen of 10
Algeria , seeks review of a n October 11 , 2018 decision of the 11

BIA , denying his third motion to reopen

. In re Mehdi Hadj 12
Djelloul , No. A 076 101 378 (B.I.A. Oct. 11 , 2018 ). We assume 13
the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 14
procedural history. 15
We review constitutional claims and questions of law de 16

novo. See Pierre v. Holder , 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 2009). 17
We review Hadj Djelloul ’s motions to reopen for abuse of 18
discretion, and we review the BIA and IJ’s country condition 19
findings under the substantial evidence standard. See Jian 20
Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 138, 168

- 69 (2d Cir. 2008). 21

In h is motion to reopen, Hadj Djelloul ass erted that he 22

converted to Catholicism in the United States and feared 23
persecution in Algeria on account of his religion. 243 It is undisputed that , absent an applicable exception, 1
Hadj Djelloul’s 201 8 motion to reopen was untimely and number

2
barred because it was his third motion to reopen and was filed 3

more than 15 years after his removal order became final in 4

2002

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) (A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. 5

§ 1003.2(c)(2). An exception to the statutory and regulatory 6

time and number limit ation s is available , however, if 7
reopening is sought to apply for asylum and the motion “is 8

based on [evidence of] changed country conditions arising in 9
the country of nationality or the country to which remova l 10

has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not 11
available and would not have been discovered or presented at 12
the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 13

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3). The BIA did not err in finding that 14
Hadj Djelloul failed to provide evidence of such changed 15

country conditions. 16

As an initial matter, we reject Hadj Djelloul’s arguments 17

that the BIA violated the C onstitution and misinterpreted the 18
law in concluding that his changed personal circumstance s in 19

the United States, namely, his religious conversion, d id not 20
satisfy the changed country conditions exception to the time 21
and number limits for motions to reopen. See Li Yong Zheng 224 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 416 F.3d 129, 130

– 31 (2d Cir. 2005) ; 1

Yuen Ji n v. Mukasey , 538 F.3d 143, 157 (2d Cir. 2008) ( “ [A] n 2
alien who has already filed one asylum application, been 3
adjudicated removable and ordered deported, and who has 4
nevertheless remained in the country illegally for several 5
years, does not have a liberty or property interest in a 6
discretionary grant of asylum.” ); id. at 158 (“Aliens who 7
disregard a final removal order and remain in the country 8
illegally are not similarly situated to aliens who have 9
complied with a final order but subsequently reenter the 10
United States and try to seek relief.”). 11
We also reject Hadj Djelloul’s religious freedom claim

. 12
First, it bears noting that his motion to reopen is subject 13
to the changed country conditions exception because of his 14
failure to comply with his removal or der

– not because of his 15
religion

. Further, he did not show that his religious 16
practice has been or will be restricted by the disallowance 17
of his changed country conditions argument

. See Burwell v. 18
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. , 573 U.S. 682, 694

– 95 (2014); Navajo 19

Nation v. U.S. Forest Serv. , 535 F.3d 1058, 1069

– 70 (9th Cir. 20
2008) (“Under [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] , a 21
‘substantial burden’ is imposed only when individuals are 225 forced to choose between following the te nets of their 1
religion and receiving a governmental benefit . . . or coerced 2
to act contrary to their religious beliefs by the threat of 3

civil or criminal sanctions . . . .” ( internal citations 4

omitted) ). 5
“In determining whether evidence accompanying a mo tion 6
to reopen demonstrates a material change in country 7
conditions that would justify reopening, [the BIA] compare[s] 8
the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion 9
to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing 10

below.” In re S

- Y

- G , 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007). 11

As the BIA found, Hadj Djelloul did not establish worsened 12
conditions for Catholics in Algeria since the time of his 13
2000 hearing. Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its 14
discretion in denying his motion to reopen as untimely and 15

number

- barred

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) (A), (C). 16
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 17

DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 18

stays VACATED. 19

FOR THE COURT: 20 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolf e , 21 Clerk of Court 22