20-687

Singh v. Garland

BIA

A206 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 

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 United 

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 

on the 16th 4 day of November, two thousand twenty-one.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

8 GERARD E. LYNCH,

9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _____________________________________

12

13 JOGA SINGH,

14 Petitioner,

15

16 v. 20-687

17 NAC

18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 

19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 _____________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights,

24 NY.

25 

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 

27 Assistant Attorney General; 

28 Anthony C. Payne, Assistant 

29 Director; Judith R. O’Sullivan, 
2

1 Trial Attorney, Office of 

2 Immigration Litigation, United 

3 States Department of Justice, 

4 Washington, 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 Joga Singh, a native and citizen of India, 

11 seeks review of a January 31, 2020, decision of the BIA,

12 denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re 

13 Joga Singh, No. A206 513 468 (B.I.A. Jan. 31, 2020). We 

14 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 

15 procedural history.

16 As an initial matter, Singh timely petitions for review 

17 of the denial of his motion to reopen, but not from the 

18 underlying order denying asylum and related relief on 

19 credibility grounds, which Singh failed to timely appeal.

20 Order, Singh v. Barr, No. 18-2314 (2d Cir. May 8, 2019), ECF 

21 no. 38. Thus, we do not consider his challenges to that 

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

23 Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89–90 (2d Cir. 2001). While we review 

24 the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of 
3

1 discretion, we review the agency’s findings of fact regarding 

2 changed country conditions for substantial evidence. See Jian 

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

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

5 the Congress Party and the police had recently threatened and 

6 harassed his parents in an effort to locate him on account of 

7 his membership in the Sikh-affiliated Akali Dal Mann Party. 

8 As support, he submitted his own written statement and general 

9 country conditions evidence.

10 It is undisputed that Singh’s October 2019 motion to 

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

12 after his removal order became final in July 2018. See

13 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). 

14 Although the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen 

15 does not apply if reopening is sought to apply for asylum 

16 “based on changed country conditions arising in the country 

17 of nationality or the country to which removal has been 

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

19 § 1003.2(c)(3), the BIA did not err in finding that Singh 

20 failed to show changed conditions in India. 

21 The BIA did not err in discounting Singh’s unsworn 

22 statement that the police had recently harassed his parents 
4

1 because Singh was previously found not credible by the 

2 immigration judge in the underlying proceedings. See Y.C. v. 

3 Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) (“We generally defer 

4 to the agency’s evaluation of the weight to be afforded an 

5 applicant’s documentary evidence.”); Qin Wen Zheng v. 

6 Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146–49 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that 

7 the agency may decline to credit unauthenticated evidence 

8 submitted with a motion to reopen by an alien who was found 

9 not credible in the underlying proceedings). The BIA also 

10 reasonably found that Singh’s country conditions evidence did 

11 not establish a material change in conditions in India but 

12 rather “a continuation of political and religious abuses, 

13 including at the hands of police and political parties.” In 

14 re Joga Singh, No. A206 513 468, at 2; see also 8 U.S.C. 

15 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 

16 (B.I.A. 2007) (“In determining whether evidence accompanying 

17 a motion to reopen demonstrates a material change in country 

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

19 the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion 

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

21 below.”). Because Singh failed to demonstrate a material 

22 change in conditions in India, the BIA did not abuse its 
5

1 discretion in denying his motion to reopen as untimely. See

2 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C). 

3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

4 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 

5 stays VACATED.

6 FOR THE COURT: 

7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

8 Clerk of Court