Court Opinion

ID: 9890556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 16:00:51.702076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:27.602940
License: Public Domain

21-6559
     Hossain v. Garland
                                                                                   BIA
                                                                           A206 370 211

                          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                               SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL
APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY
CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL.

 1         At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
 2   Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
 3   Square, in the City of New York, on the 13th day of October, two thousand
 4   twenty-three.
 5
 6   PRESENT:
 7                   DENNIS JACOBS,
 8                   BETH ROBINSON,
 9                   MARIA ARAÚJO KAHN,
10                    Circuit Judges.
11   _____________________________________
12
13   SHAHADAT HOSSAIN,
14          Petitioner,
15
16                   v.                                          21-6559
17                                                               NAC
18   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
19   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20              Respondent.
21   _____________________________________
 1   FOR PETITIONER:                    Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, Esq., New York,
 2                                      NY.
 3
 4   FOR RESPONDENT:                    Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant
 5                                      Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant
 6                                      Director; Sunah Lee, Senior Trial Attorney,
 7                                      Office of Immigration Litigation, United
 8                                      States Department of Justice, Washington,
 9                                      DC.
10
11         UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of

12   Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

13   DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

14         Petitioner Shahadat Hossain, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks

15   review of a September 22, 2021, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen

16   his removal proceedings. In re Shahadat Hossain, No. A206 370 211 (B.I.A. Sept.

17   22, 2021).   We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

18   procedural history.

19         The only decision before us is the BIA’s denial of Hossain’s motion to

20   reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005).

21   Hossain does not mention that motion, much less challenge the BIA’s findings that

22   the motion was untimely, his individualized evidence did not overcome the

                                            2
 1   underlying adverse credibility determination, and his country conditions evidence

 2   did not demonstrate a change in conditions in Bangladesh as required to excuse

 3   his untimely filing. We consider abandoned and will not reach “any claims not

 4   adequately presented in an appellant’s brief, and an appellant’s failure to make

 5   legal or factual arguments constitutes abandonment.” Debique v. Garland, 58 F.4th

 6   676, 684 (2d Cir. 2023) (quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we deny the

 7   petition. Id. at 684 (“Under the party-presentation rule, we normally decide only

 8   questions presented by the parties and may play only a modest initiating role in

 9   shaping the arguments before us.” (quotation marks omitted)).

10         For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending

11   motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

12                                        FOR THE COURT:
13                                        Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
14                                        Clerk of Court

                                            3