Opinion ID: 214086
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timeliness of Pllumi's Motion

Text: Before considering the issue of sua sponte reopening, we address the timeliness of Pllumi's motion to reconsider and to reopen his proceedings, and we briefly examine the sufficiency of the evidence he proffered on changed country conditions. A motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days of the entry of the final administrative order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B). Such a motion must claim errors of law or fact in the BIA's prior decision and be supported by pertinent authority. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). The operative statute and regulation provide no exception to the time limitations on filing a motion to reconsider. Motions to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the entry of the final administrative order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). In contrast to the fixed time limit on a motion for reconsideration, however, the time limit for a motion to reopen does not apply if the motion relates to an asylum application and is based upon changed country conditions proved by evidence that is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). The burden of proof on a motion to reopen is on the alien to establish eligibility for the requested relief. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c); see Huang v. Att'y Gen., 620 F.3d 372, 389 (3d Cir.2010) (noting that the BIA may deny a motion to reopen if it determines the alien has not established a prima facie case for the relief sought). The BIA issued a final administrative order in Pllumi's case on June 28, 2007. Pllumi's combined motion to reopen and reconsider was not brought until September 17, 2009, well past the 30- and 90-day deadlines applicable to reopening and reconsideration respectively. Thus, the BIA correctly decided that Pllumi's motion was untimely, unless he proved with appropriate evidence that an adverse change in country conditions warranted reopening the case as to asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). The BIA concluded that he did not, saying, [the] evidence submitted does not demonstrate meaningfully changed conditions in Albania pertinent to [Pllumi's] claim from the conditions in Albania when the case was before the Immigration Judge in 2005. (AR at 4.) The evidence Pllumi presented included letters from various individuals in Albania indicating that the area in which Pllumi's hometown was located was under psychological pressures . . . by left extremists (AR at 107), and that his hometown itself was from time to time terrorized by Socialists due to lack of police services (AR at 105). Those letters, however, do not indicate meaningfully changed country conditions after 2005, when the case was before the IJ. (AR at 4.) Rather, they suggest that the conditions described have persisted. The other evidence proffered by Pllumi is no more convincing. [10] The BIA did not abuse its discretion in deciding that Pllumi's evidence of changed country conditions failed to support reopening his proceedings.