Opinion ID: 4388170
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Patel’s Second Motion to Reopen

Text: Instead, Patel filed another motion to reopen. It alleged the same grounds for reopening, but with a few more details: The BJP was in power in India from 1998 to 2004. Then the Congress Party held control until 2014, when the BJP returned to power. So Patel alleged that he has a renewed fear of political persecution. Along with his second motion, Patel submitted a second asylum application, identical with his first. And he gave a second unsworn supporting statement, also identical with his first. But this time he failed to offer evidence of India’s conditions. The Board denied the second motion as both time- and number-barred. It noted its previous finding that Patel had gotten notice of his 1999 hearing. It also found that he had “proffered no country information demonstrating materially changed circumstances or conditions in India” to justify reopening. AR 7. And it found no exceptional circumstances that warranted reopening his proceedings sua sponte. 3 Patel timely petitioned for judicial review of this order. He contests only the Board’s ruling that he had not shown material changes in India’s conditions. The Immigration Judge had jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. The Board had juris- diction to review the removal order under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(b)(3) and 1240.15. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Liu v. Att’y Gen., 555 F.3d 145, 148 (3d Cir. 2009). II. THE BOARD DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING PATEL’S SECOND MOTION TO REOPEN Normally, an alien may file only one motion to reopen removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A). And the alien must file that motion within 90 days of the final removal order. Id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). But these time and number limits do not bar motions to reopen to apply for asylum or withholding “based on changed circumstances” in the alien’s home country. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Shardar v. Att’y Gen., 503 F.3d 308, 313 (3d Cir. 2007). Evidence of changed circumstances qualifies only if it “is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the” original merits hearing. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Filja v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 241, 253 (3d Cir. 2006). So to evaluate changed circumstances, we compare conditions in India at the time of Patel’s merits hearing (1999) with conditions in India at the time of his latest motion to reopen (2018). See Shardar, 503 F.3d at 313-14. 4 Patel filed two motions to reopen. And he filed the second one more than 18 years after his final removal order. So his motion is both time- and number-barred unless he has previously unavailable evidence of materially changed conditions in India. But he offers no evidence. We review only the denial of Patel’s second motion to reopen. Unlike his first motion, his second one included no evidence of India’s conditions. All we have are his unsupported and unsworn allegations. So the Board rightly found that he had “proffered no country information demonstrating materially changed circumstances or conditions in India.” AR 7. Even if we took his alleged changes at face value, the result would be the same. Patel alleges two changed circumstances: (1) the BJP’s return to power in 2014, and (2) his cousin’s theft of his brother’s properties and his related fear that his cousin will try to kill him. But the former is not a change. As Patel himself noted, the BJP was in power at the time of his merits hearing in 1999. So the BJP’s return to power in 2014 was a return to the status quo ante, not a change. And the latter is not a material change in India’s conditions. Patel’s dispute with his cousin over allegedly stolen properties is an intra-family affair, not a change in India’s country conditions. But personal disputes cannot support claims to asylum. Khan v. Att’y Gen., 691 F.3d 488, 497-98 (3d Cir. 2012).