Opinion ID: 2684151
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: BIA Decision on Motion to Reopen

Text: Shah filed a timely motion to reopen. The entirety of petitioner's argument in that motion was as follows: [T]he IJ made his adverse credibility determination by looking exclusively at [Shah]'s testimony from 2004 and 2011. The IJ found supposed inconsistencies between the two sets of testimony and denied [Shah]'s application. No other reasons for the IJ's adverse credibility determination were included in the BIA's decision. Now, [Shah] is providing new evidence in the form of three affidavits from close family and friends that corroborate his claims of torture and persecution in Pakistan, and help him make a prima facie showing of having a well-founded fear for his claim of asylum. Shah's motion was, as the Board noted, accompanied by affidavits and death certificates of individuals from his home town, along with evidence that the Taliban has recently threatened his family members because they are considered 'pagan' and 'spies.' On June 20, 2013, the BIA denied petitioner's motion to reopen. The BIA concluded that the harm petitioner claims to fear appears to be specific to the Swat Valley, and [Shah] has neither argued nor offered evidence that it would be unreasonable for him to relocate to safety elsewhere in Pakistan, citing In re D-I-M—, 24 I. & N. Dec. 448, 450-51 (BIA 2008). This petition for review followed.