Opinion ID: 203006
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: New Evidence Regarding His Uncle's Death

Text: We have jurisdiction to review Parvez's claim that the BIA committed a legal error in determining that the death of Parvez's uncle did not constitute new material evidence within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). [6] Parvez argues that because his uncle died in December 2004, two months after the IJ issued her oral ruling, a finding that the evidence reporting his uncle's death was not new evidence was in contravention of the regulation. This argument fails to recognize that Parvez had an opportunity to file a motion with the BIA prior to its ruling on his appeal, through which he could have presented the new evidence about his uncle's death to the IJ after a remand by the BIA. [7] However, Parvez did not submit evidence of his uncle's death to the BIA until after the BIA rendered its decision on his appeal. Therefore, the BIA was justified in its position that the death of Parvez's uncle cannot constitute new evidence sufficient to merit reopening because the respondent has not explained why he did not file a motion to reopen on this basis during the pendency of his appeal. [8]