16

- 3426 Mullar v. Sessions BIA A 087 445 586 /587/588 

### 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 COU**  **RT, 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 8 th**  **da y of**  **January, two thousand**  **eigh tee**  **n .**  4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **PIERRE N. LEVAL ,**  7 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR. ,**  8 **SUSAN L. CARNEY ,**  9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **SATPAL SINGH MULLAR, JASPAL KAUR**  13 **MULLAR, SUKHKIRANDEE P SINGH**  14 **MULLAR ,**  15 **Petitioner s**  **,** 16 17

**v.** 16
- 3426 18 **NAC** 19 **JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III,** 20 **UNITED STATES ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL ,**  21 **Respondent .**  22

**_____________________________________** 23 24 **FOR PETITIONER S**  **:** Genet Getachew , Brooklyn , NY

. 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General ; Anthony W. 28 Norwood , Senior Litigation 29 Counsel ; Colin J. Tucker , Trial 30 Attorney, Office of Immigration 31 32 332 Litigation , United States 1 Department of Justice, Washington, 2 D C. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AN D DECREED that the petitio n for review 7

is DENIED

. 8

Petitioner s Satpal Singh Mullar (“Mullar”) , Jaspal Kaur 9

Mullar, and Sukhkirandeep Singh Mullar , native s and citizen s 10

of India, seek review of a September 19, 2016 , decision of 11
the BIA denying their motion to reopen
. In re Satpal Singh 12
Mullar, Jaspal Kaur Mullar, Sukhkirandeep Singh Mullar , No s
. 13

A 087 445 586 /587/588 (B.I.A. Sept. 19, 2016 ). We assume the 14
parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 15
history in this case. 16

We review the BIA’s decision for abuse of discretion. 17

Ali v. Gonzales , 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). “An 18
abuse of discretion may be found in those circumstances 19
where the Board’s decision provides no rational 20
explanation, inexplicably departs from estab lished 21
policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only 22

summary or conclusory statements.” Kaur v. BIA , 413 F.3d 23

232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). 243 We review the BIA’s factual findings about country 1

conditions for substanti al evidence. Jian Hui Shao v. 2

Mukasey , 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). 3
It is undisputed that Mullar’s motion to reopen , filed 4

almost three years after the final administrative decision 5

was rendered , was untimely . 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) 6

(settin g 90

- day deadline for reopening) ; 8 C.F.R. § 7

1003.2(c)(2) (same)

. This time limitation may be excused if 8
the motion is filed to apply for asylum “based on changed 9
country conditions arising in the country of nationality or 10
the country to which removal has been ordered, if such 11

evidence is material and was not available and would not have 12
been discovered or presented at the previous proceedings.” 13

8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 14

1003.2(c)(3) (ii)

. Mullar presses changed conditions for 15

Sik hs since his 2011 merits hearing. 8 U.S.C. 16

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); In re S

- Y

- G

- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 17

(B

. I

. A

. 2007) (the agency “compare[s] the evidence of country 18

conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at 19
the time of the merits hearing below”). 20

The BIA was within its discretion to find that Mullar’s 21

new evidence did not excuse his untimely motion to reopen. 224 The BIA cited evidence from the 2011 merits hearing that 1

showed both Indian security forces killing demonstrators at 2
protests and Sikhs disproportionately suffer ing from state 3

violence. Cons equently, Mullar’s new evidence

-- about 4

violen t Sikh protests

-- did not reflect a material change in 5

conditions. 6
Mullar attempts to distinguish the two sets of evidence: 7
the 2011 record described a deadly confrontation that did not 8

involve Sikhs. But the BIA had the discretion to find that 9

the two sets of evidence are of a piece: the Indian government 10
does not tolerate protest, irrespective of who is protesting. 11
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 12

D E NIED . As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 13

that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 14
and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 15
is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 16
in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 17

Appellate Procedure 34( a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 18

34.1(b). 19

FOR THE COURT: 20 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe, C lerk 21