Case Name: Altin HAXHARI, Rita Haxhari, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-24
Citations: 536 F. App'x 150
Docket Number: No. 12-4567 NAC
Parties: Altin HAXHARI, Rita Haxhari, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, and DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 536
Pages: 150–151

Head Matter:
Altin HAXHARI, Rita Haxhari, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-4567 NAC.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Oct. 24, 2013.
Michael P. DiRaimondo, DiRaimondo & Masi, LLP, Melville, NY, for Petitioners.
Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director; Michael C. Heyse, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, and DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioners Altin and Rita Haxhari, natives and citizens of Albania, seek review of the October 31, 2012, decision of the BIA denying their motion to reopen. In re Altin Haxhari, et al., Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ]/980 (B.I.A. Oct. 31, 2012). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
An alien seeking to reopen proceedings may file one motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is no dispute that Altin Haxhari's May 2012 motion was untimely and number-barred, as it was his third motion to reopen, filed more than seven years after the BIA's final administrative decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The time and number limitations do not apply to a motion to reopen if it is "based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality . if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing." 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(C)(ii).
With regard to Haxhari's political activism claim, the BIA found that Haxhari failed to show that his fears were on account of a protected ground, rather than due to general unrest and instability. While Haxhari contended that Albania had "become particularly dangerous for politically active persons such as" himself, in 2003 an IJ found Haxhari to be not credible with regard to his claim that he had been politically active in Albania, and Hax-hari presented no evidence in his motion to reopen that showed political activism on his part, or rebutted in any way the adverse credibility determination. Accordingly, the BIA's determination that Hax-hari had not established changed country conditions that were material to his claim is supported by substantial evidence. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.2008).
Moreover, as to his claim regarding a blood feud, Haxhari submitted no new evidence specific to his situation, rather, his evidence described generally the prevalence of blood feuds in Albania. Accordingly, because, as we stated in our decision denying Haxhari's prior petition for review, Haxhari provided evidence that the individual who set his house on fire was arrested and detained after doing so, and that the Committee of Nationwide Reconciliation was mediating the feud between the two families, he did not show that the Albanian government was unable or unwilling to protect him or his family from this blood feud. See Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 342 (2d Cir.2006). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Haxhari's motion to reopen because his evidence failed to establish either changed country conditions or a prima facie case for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988); Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
The claims of Altin Haxhari's wife, Rita, are entirely derivative of his claim.