12-4567 Haxhari v. Holder BIA A095 467 979 A095 467 980 

### 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 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 United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 24 th** **day of October, two thousand thirteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **ROBERT D. SACK,** 7 **BARRINGTON D. PARKER,** 8 **DENNY CHIN,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **ALTIN HAXHARI, RITA HAXHARI,** 13 Petitioners**,** 14 15 **v. 12-4567** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONERS: Michael P. DiRaimondo, DiRaimondo &** 23 **Masi, LLP, Melville, NY.** 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant** 26 **Attorney General; Mary Jane Candaux,** 27 **Assistant Director; Michael C.** 28 **Heyse, Trial Attorney, Office of** 29 **Immigration Litigation, United** 30 **States Department of Justice,** 31 **Washington, D.C.** 32UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review 3 is DENIED. 4 Petitioners Altin and Rita Haxhari, natives and 5 citizens of Albania, seek review of the October 31, 2012, 6 decision of the BIA denying their motion to reopen. In re 7 Altin Haxhari, et al. , Nos. A095 467 979/980 (B.I.A. Oct. 8 31, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 9 underlying facts and procedural history of the case. 10 An alien seeking to reopen proceedings may file one 11 motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the date on 12 which the final administrative decision was rendered. 13 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). 14 There is no dispute that Altin Haxhari’s May 2012 motion was 15 untimely and number-barred, as it was his third motion to 16 reopen, filed more than seven years after the BIA’s final 17 administrative decision. * See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 18 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The time and number limitations do 19 not apply to a motion to reopen if it is “based on changed 20

*The claims of Altin Haxhari’s wife, Rita, are entirely derivative of his claim. 2circumstances arising in the country of nationality . . . if 1 such evidence is material and was not available and could 2 not have been discovered or presented at the previous 3 hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also8 U.S.C. 4 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). 5 With regard to Haxhari’s political activism claim, the 6 BIA found that Haxhari failed to show that his fears were on 7 account of a protected ground, rather than due to general 8 unrest and instability. While Haxhari contended that 9 Albania had “become particularly dangerous for politically 10 active persons such as” himself, in 2003 an IJ found Haxhari 11 to be not credible with regard to his claim that he had been 12 politically active in Albania, and Haxhari presented no 13 evidence in his motion to reopen that showed political 14 activism on his part, or rebutted in any way the adverse 15 credibility determination. Accordingly, the BIA’s 16 determination that Haxhari had not established changed 17 country conditions that were material to his claim is 18 supported by substantial evidence. See Jian Hui Shao v. 19 Mukasey,546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). 20 Moreover, as to his claim regarding a blood feud, 21 Haxhari submitted no new evidence specific to his situation, 22

3rather, his evidence described generally the prevalence of 1 blood feuds in Albania. Accordingly, because, as we stated 2 in our decision denying Haxhari’s prior petition for review, 3 Haxhari provided evidence that the individual who set his 4 house on fire was arrested and detained after doing so, and 5 that the Committee of Nationwide Reconciliation was 6 mediating the feud between the two families, he did not show 7 that the Albanian government was unable or unwilling to 8 protect him or his family from this blood feud. See 9 Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 433 F.3d 332, 342 (2d 10 Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its 11 discretion in denying Haxhari’s motion to reopen because his 12 evidence failed to establish either changed country 13 conditions or a prima faciecase for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. 14 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii);INS v. Abudu , 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 15 (1988); Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per 16 curiam). 17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 18 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 19 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 20 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 21 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 22

4oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 1 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 2 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 3

FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 5

5