16-3426

Mullar v. Sessions

BIA

A087 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 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 8th 4 day of January, two thousand eighteen.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 PIERRE N. LEVAL,

8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,

9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _____________________________________

12

13 SATPAL SINGH MULLAR, JASPAL KAUR 

14 MULLAR, SUKHKIRANDEEP SINGH 

15 MULLAR,

16 Petitioners,

17

18 v. 16-3426

19 NAC

20 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III,

21 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

22 Respondent.

23 _____________________________________

24

25 FOR PETITIONERS: Genet Getachew, Brooklyn, NY.

26

27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 

28 Attorney General; Anthony W. 

29 Norwood, Senior Litigation 

30 Counsel; Colin J. Tucker, Trial 

31 Attorney, Office of Immigration 

32

33
2

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 petition for review 

8 is DENIED.

9 Petitioners Satpal Singh Mullar (“Mullar”), Jaspal Kaur 

10 Mullar, and Sukhkirandeep Singh Mullar, natives and citizens

11 of India, seek review of a September 19, 2016, decision of 

12 the BIA denying their motion to reopen. In re Satpal Singh 

13 Mullar, Jaspal Kaur Mullar, Sukhkirandeep Singh Mullar, Nos. 

14 A 087 445 586/587/588 (B.I.A. Sept. 19, 2016). We assume the 

15 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 

16 history in this case.

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

18 Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). “An 

19 abuse of discretion may be found in those circumstances 

20 where the Board’s decision provides no rational 

21 explanation, inexplicably departs from established 

22 policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only 

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

24 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). 
3

1 We review the BIA’s factual findings about country 

2 conditions for substantial evidence. Jian Hui Shao v. 

3 Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). 

4 It is undisputed that Mullar’s motion to reopen, filed 

5 almost three years after the final administrative decision 

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

7 (setting 90-day deadline for reopening); 8 C.F.R. § 

8 1003.2(c)(2) (same). This time limitation may be excused if 

9 the motion is filed to apply for asylum “based on changed 

10 country conditions arising in the country of nationality or 

11 the country to which removal has been ordered, if such 

12 evidence is material and was not available and would not have 

13 been discovered or presented at the previous proceedings.” 

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

15 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Mullar presses changed conditions for 

16 Sikhs since his 2011 merits hearing. 8 U.S.C. 

17 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 

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

19 conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at 

20 the time of the merits hearing below”). 

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

22 new evidence did not excuse his untimely motion to reopen. 
4

1 The BIA cited evidence from the 2011 merits hearing that 

2 showed both Indian security forces killing demonstrators at 

3 protests and Sikhs disproportionately suffering from state 

4 violence. Consequently, Mullar’s new evidence--about 

5 violent Sikh protests--did not reflect a material change in 

6 conditions. 

7 Mullar attempts to distinguish the two sets of evidence: 

8 the 2011 record described a deadly confrontation that did not 

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

10 the two sets of evidence are of a piece: the Indian government 

11 does not tolerate protest, irrespective of who is protesting. 

12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

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

14 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 

15 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 

16 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 

17 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 

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

19 34.1(b).

20 FOR THE COURT: 

21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk