20

- 687 Singh v. Garland BIA A 206 513 468 

### 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**  **ELECTR ONIC 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 Mar**  **shall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,**  3 **on the 1**  **6 t**  **h da**  **y of N**  **o v**  **e m**  **b e**  **r ,**  **two thousand twenty** 
**- one** 
**.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES ,**  7 **GERARD E. LYNCH ,**  8 **WILLIAM J. NARDINI ,**  9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **JOGA SINGH**  **,** 13 **Petitioner ,**  14 15
**v. 20** 

**- 687**  16 **NAC** 17 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 18 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL**  **,** 19 **Respondent**

**.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights , 23 NY

. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Jeffrey Bossert Clark , Acting 26 Assistant Attorney General; 27 Anthony C. Payne , Assistant 28 Director ; Judith R. O’Sullivan , 292 Trial Attorney , Office of 1 Immigration Litigation , United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, 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 Joga Singh , a native and citizen of India , 10

seeks review of a January 31 , 20 20 , decision of the BIA , 11
denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings

. In re 12

Joga Singh , No. A 206 513 468 (B.I.A. Jan. 31, 2020 ). We 13
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 14
procedural history. 15
As an initial matter, Singh timely petitions for review 16
of the denial of his motion to reopen, but not from the 17
underlying order denying asylum and related relief on 18
credibility grounds, which Singh failed to timely appeal. 19

Orde r , Singh v. Barr , No. 18

- 2314 (2d Cir. May 8, 2019), ECF 20

no. 38. T hus , we do not consider his challenges to that 21
underlying decision

. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of 22

Justice , 265 F.3d 83, 89

– 90 (2d Cir. 2001). While we review 23
the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of 243 discretion, we review the agency’s findings of fact regarding 1
changed country conditions for substantial evidence. S ee Jian 2
Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 138, 16 8

- 6 9 (2d Cir. 2008). 3

In his motion to reopen, Singh asserted that members of 4

the Congress Party and the police had recently threatened and 5
harassed his parents in an effort to locate him on account of 6
his membership in the Sikh

- affiliated Akali Dal Mann Party

. 7

A s support, he submitted his own written statement and general 8
country conditions evidence. 9
It is undisputed that Singh’s October 2019 motion to 10

reopen was untimely because he filed it more than one year 11

after his removal order became final in July 2018

. See 12

8 U.S.C. § 1 229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). 13
Although the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen 14

do es not apply if reopening is sought to apply for asylum 15
“based on changed country conditions arising in the country 16
of nationality or the country to which removal has been 17

ordered, ” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. 18

§ 1003.2(c)(3) , the BIA did not err in finding that Singh 19
failed to show changed conditions in India

. 20

The BIA did not err in d iscounting Singh’s unsworn 21

statement that the police had recently harassed his parents 224 because Singh was previously found not credible by the 1
immigration judge in t he underlying proceedings

. See Y.C. v. 2

Holder , 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) (“We generally defer 3
to the agency’s evaluation of the weight to be afforded an 4
applicant’s documentary evidence.”); Qin Wen Zheng v. 5

Gonzales , 500 F.3d 143, 146

– 49 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that 6
the agency may decline to credit unauthenticated evidence 7
submitted with a motion to reopen by an alien who was found 8
not credible in the underlying proceeding s ). The BIA also 9
reasonably found that Singh’s country conditions eviden ce did 10
not establish a material change in conditions in India but 11

rather “ a continuation of political and religious abuses, 12
including at the hands of police and political parties

. ” In 13

re Joga Singh , No. A 206 513 468, at 2; s ee also 8 U.S.C. 14

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C )(ii); In re S

- Y

- G

- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 15

(B

. I

. A

. 2007) (“In determining whether evidence accompanying 16
a motion to reopen demonstrates a material change in country 17
conditions that would justify reopening, [the BIA] compare[s] 18
the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion 19

to those that exis ted at the time of the merits hearing 20
below.”). Because Singh failed to demonstrate a material 21
change in conditions in India, the BIA did not abuse its 225 discretion in denying his motion to reopen as untimely. See 1

8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C). 2

For the fore going reasons, the petition for review is 3

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 4

stays VACATED. 5

FOR THE COURT: 6 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 7 Clerk of Court 8