Bah v. Holder , 495 F. App'x 147 ( 2012 )

11-3943
Bah v. Holder
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
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 6th day of September, two thousand twelve.
5
6
7 PRESENT:
8 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 AISSATA BAH,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 11-3943-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Genet Getachew, Brooklyn, New York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
28 Attorney General; Leslie McKay, Assistant
29 Director; Allison Frayer, Trial Attorney,
30 Office of Immigration Litigation, United
31 States Department of Justice, Washington,
32 D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
4 review is DENIED.
5 Aissata Bah, a native and citizen of Guinea, seeks
6 review of a September 16, 2011 decision of the BIA affirming
7 the February 10, 2010 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
8 Noel Ferris denying her motion to reopen. In re Aissata Bah,
9 No. A095 460 086 (B.I.A. Sept. 16, 2011), aff’ing No. A095
10 460 086 (Immig Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 10, 2010). We assume the
11 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
12 procedural history of this case.
13 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
14 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. See Jigme Wangchuck
15 v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). An alien seeking
16 to reopen proceedings may file only one motion to reopen no
17 later than 90 days after the date on which the final
18 administrative decision was rendered. See 8 U.S.C.
19 § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C); see also 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(2),
20 1003.23(b)(1). It is undisputed that Bah’s 2009 motion to
21 reopen was untimely because the IJ issued Bah’s removal
22 order in 2003. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C).
2
1 However, the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen
2 does not apply if the motion requests reopening to apply for
3 asylum, withholding of removal and CAT relief and is “based
4 on changed country conditions arising in the country of
5 nationality or the country to which removal has been
6 ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available
7 and would not have been discovered or presented at the
8 previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8
9 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), 1003.23(b)(4).
10 In this case, the agency reasonably concluded that Bah
11 failed to establish a change in country conditions material
12 to her claim for relief. Bah’s fundamental argument is that
13 she fears future persecution in Guinea because she does not
14 support the military government that took power after the
15 death of President Conte in 2009. However, Bah offered no
16 evidence to support her general claims that her opposition
17 to the new government will result in persecution. Although
18 she provided articles describing various abuses perpetrated
19 by the new government, she offered no evidence that she
20 would be subject to persecution there on the basis of her
21 political beliefs. Further, although her husband was
22 allegedly arrested after protesting against the government,
3
1 Bah offered no evidence that his arrest will result in her
2 arrest, detention or other persecution. Absent “solid
3 support” in the record that her fear is objectively
4 reasonable, Bah’s general claim that she fears future
5 persecution in Guinea is “speculative at best.” Jian Xing
6 Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005).
7 Because substantial evidence supports the agency’s
8 conclusion that Bah did not establish changed country
9 conditions material to her claim for asylum, the agency did
10 not abuse its discretion by denying the motion as untimely.
11 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R.
12 §§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), 1003.23(b)(4)(I).
13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
14 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
15 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
16 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
17 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
18 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
19 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
20 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
21 FOR THE COURT:
22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
23
4