Case Name: Eren KRAJA, Petitioner, 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: 2014-06-23
Citations: 570 F. App'x 75
Docket Number: No. 13-1770
Parties: Eren KRAJA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, RICHARD C. WESLEY and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 570
Pages: 75–76

Head Matter:
Eren KRAJA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-1770.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 23, 2014.
Michael P. Diraimondo, Melville, NY, for Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel; Jacob A. Bashyrov, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, RICHARD C. WESLEY and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Eren Kraja, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of an April 8, 2018, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Eren Kraja, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 8, 2013). It is undisputed that Kraja's motion was untimely because it was filed approximately nine years after the agency's final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). However, "[tjhere is no time limit on the filing of a motion to reopen . based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available . at the previous proceeding." 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).
An alien seeking to have an administrative decision reopened on this basis bears the " 'heavy burden' of demonstrating that the proffered new evidence would likely alter the result in [his] case." Shoo v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168 (2d Cir.2008). We review the BIA's decision on this point only for abuse of discretion. Id. After considering the record, we find no error in the BIA's determination that Kraja failed to meet his burden. Moreover, Kraja's claim that the BIA did not consider all of his evidence is untrue. Kraja does not identify what evidence he believes the BIA failed to consider and the BIA's decision specifically discusses all of the exhibits Kraja provided.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.