Opinion ID: 2797987
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Reopen – Docket Number 14-819(Con)

Text: We review the BIA’s denial of Petitioners’ motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, and any factual findings for substantial evidence. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). “A motion to reopen proceedings shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). Failure to offer such evidence is, therefore, a proper ground on which the BIA may deny a motion to reopen, as is the movant’s failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought. I.N.S. v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to reopen. First, it had previously considered and reasonably rejected on appeal Kujtim’s assertion that he was nervous and had difficulty understanding the interpreter at his credible fear interview because that interview was conducted with his 6 counsel present and Kujtim agreed with the contents of the written summary of the interview (which included his inconsistent statements). See Ming Zhang, 585 F.3d at 722, 725. Moreover, although Kujtim was informed that he could stop the interview if he did not understand the proceedings, he did not do so. The BIA also did not err in finding previously available a psychological report related to Kujtim’s purported memory issues. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). Alternatively, the BIA reasonably concluded that the report was not material as it did not rebut the underlying adverse credibility determination. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 234 (2d Cir. 2005). Indeed, the author of the report explicitly stated that his conclusion that Kujtim had poor short term memory concerned his memory only at the time of the evaluation in 2013, and thus, it did not explain Kujtim’s inconsistent statements made in 2006. Similarly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion (or violate Petitioners’ due process rights) in determining that evidence that the Socialist Party was in power in Albania was immaterial because Petitioners were not credible as to their assertion that Socialists had targeted them on account of their political opinion. See id. 7 For the foregoing reasons, the petitions for review are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). FOR THE COURT: Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 8