18-3388

Hadj Djelloul v. Garland

BIA

A076 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.

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

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 

3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 

New York, on the 14th 4 day of May, two thousand twenty-one.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,

8 Chief Judge,

9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,

10 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,

11 Circuit Judges.

12 _____________________________________

13

14 MEHDI HADJ DJELLOUL,

15 Petitioner,

16

17 v. 18-3388

18 NAC

19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 

20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.1 21

22 _____________________________________

23

24 FOR PETITIONER: Alexis Ann Dutt, Esq., Karam Law,

25 Bloomington, MN.

26 

27 FOR RESPONDENT: Jessica E. Burns, Senior 

28 Litigation Counsel; Claire L. 

29 Workman, Senior Litigation 

1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General 

Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent.
2

1 Counsel, Office of Immigration 

2 Litigation, United States 

3 Department of Justice, Washington, 

4 DC.

5

6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

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

9 is DENIED.

10 Petitioner Mehdi Hadj Djelloul, a native and citizen of 

11 Algeria, seeks review of an October 11, 2018 decision of the

12 BIA, denying his third motion to reopen. In re Mehdi Hadj 

13 Djelloul, No. A076 101 378 (B.I.A. Oct. 11, 2018). We assume 

14 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 

15 procedural history.

16 We review constitutional claims and questions of law de 

17 novo. See Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 2009). 

18 We review Hadj Djelloul’s motions to reopen for abuse of 

19 discretion, and we review the BIA and IJ’s country condition 

20 findings under the substantial evidence standard. See Jian 

21 Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). 

22 In his motion to reopen, Hadj Djelloul asserted that he 

23 converted to Catholicism in the United States and feared 

24 persecution in Algeria on account of his religion. 
3

1 It is undisputed that, absent an applicable exception,

2 Hadj Djelloul’s 2018 motion to reopen was untimely and number3 barred because it was his third motion to reopen and was filed 

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

5 2002. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. 

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

7 time and number limitations is available, however, if 

8 reopening is sought to apply for asylum and the motion “is 

9 based on [evidence of] changed country conditions arising in 

10 the country of nationality or the country to which removal 

11 has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not 

12 available and would not have been discovered or presented at 

13 the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 

14 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3). The BIA did not err in finding that 

15 Hadj Djelloul failed to provide evidence of such changed 

16 country conditions.

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

18 that the BIA violated the Constitution and misinterpreted the 

19 law in concluding that his changed personal circumstances in 

20 the United States, namely, his religious conversion, did not 

21 satisfy the changed country conditions exception to the time 

22 and number limits for motions to reopen. See Li Yong Zheng 
4

1 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 416 F.3d 129, 130–31 (2d Cir. 2005); 

2 Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143, 157 (2d Cir. 2008) (“[A]n 

3 alien who has already filed one asylum application, been 

4 adjudicated removable and ordered deported, and who has 

5 nevertheless remained in the country illegally for several 

6 years, does not have a liberty or property interest in a 

7 discretionary grant of asylum.”); id. at 158 (“Aliens who 

8 disregard a final removal order and remain in the country 

9 illegally are not similarly situated to aliens who have 

10 complied with a final order but subsequently reenter the 

11 United States and try to seek relief.”). 

12 We also reject Hadj Djelloul’s religious freedom claim. 

13 First, it bears noting that his motion to reopen is subject 

14 to the changed country conditions exception because of his 

15 failure to comply with his removal order – not because of his 

16 religion. Further, he did not show that his religious 

17 practice has been or will be restricted by the disallowance 

18 of his changed country conditions argument. See Burwell v. 

19 Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 694–95 (2014); Navajo 

20 Nation v. U.S. Forest Serv., 535 F.3d 1058, 1069–70 (9th Cir. 

21 2008) (“Under [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act], a 

22 ‘substantial burden’ is imposed only when individuals are 
5

1 forced to choose between following the tenets of their 

2 religion and receiving a governmental benefit . . . or coerced 

3 to act contrary to their religious beliefs by the threat of 

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

5 omitted)).

6 “In determining whether evidence accompanying a motion 

7 to reopen demonstrates a material change in country 

8 conditions that would justify reopening, [the BIA] compare[s] 

9 the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion 

10 to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing 

11 below.” In re S-Y-G, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007). 

12 As the BIA found, Hadj Djelloul did not establish worsened 

13 conditions for Catholics in Algeria since the time of his 

14 2000 hearing. Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its 

15 discretion in denying his motion to reopen as untimely and 

16 number-barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C). 

17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

18 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 

19 stays VACATED.

20 FOR THE COURT: 

21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

22 Clerk of Court