Azeem v. Holder , 440 F. App'x 10 ( 2011 )

10-3069-ag
Azeem v. Holder
BIA
A095 956 988
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New
York, on the 7th day of October, two thousand eleven.
PRESENT:
JON O. NEWMAN,
JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges.
______________________________________
MUHAMMAD AZEEM, AKA AZEEM MUHAMMAD,
Petitioner,
10-3069-ag
v. NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Usman B. Ahmad, Long Island City, New
York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney General;
Blair O’Connor, Assistant Director;
Kathryn Moore, Trial Attorney, Office
of Immigration Litigation, Civil
Division, United States Department of
Justice, Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
DENIED.
Muhammad Azeem, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks
review of a June 30, 2010, decision of the BIA denying his
motion to reopen his removal proceedings.* In re Muhammad
Azeem, No. A095 956 988 (B.I.A. June 30, 2010). We assume the
parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural
history of the case.
We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517
(2d Cir. 2006). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in
denying Azeem’s motion to reopen as untimely. See id. A
motion to reopen must generally be filed no later than 90 days
after the date on which the final administrative decision was
rendered in the proceedings sought to be reopened. See 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C). Azeem concedes that his motion,
filed in March 2010, was untimely, because the BIA issued a
*
Although Azeem titled his motion a “motion to reconsider,” the BIA
construed it as a motion to reopen. Azeem does not challenge this aspect
of the BIA’s decision.
-2-
final order of removal in October 2008. See id.
Furthermore, the BIA did not err in concluding that Azeem
failed to submit material evidence of changed country
conditions as required to warrant consideration of his
untimely motion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). Azeem
argues that his evidence demonstrated increased violence
against Shia Muslims throughout Pakistan. As the BIA found,
however, almost all of the evidence Azeem submitted pertained
to attacks on Pakistani government, police, and military
targets, rather than Shia Muslims. Because this evidence did
not relate to the treatment of Shia Muslims, which was the
basis of Azeem’s fear of persecution, the BIA did not err in
concluding that it was not material to his claim. See Zheng
Zhong Chen v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 267, 270 (2d Cir. 2006).
Although Azeem submitted one article reporting an attack
against Shia Muslims, as the BIA observed, this article noted
that “[e]xtremist Sunnis and Shiites have targeted each
other’s leaders in violence that dates from well before the
2001 terrorist attacks in the United States.” The article
thus implies that the incident did not reflect a change in
conditions for the Shiite minority in Pakistan, but rather a
continuation of conditions that had prevailed since before
Azeem’s 2006 hearing. Accordingly, the BIA reasonably
-3-
concluded that Azeem did not show a material change in country
conditions sufficient to excuse the untimely filing of his
motion. See In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A.
2007).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
34.1(b).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
-4-