-
11-4172 Sano v. Holder BIA A072 435 656 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 10th day of September, two thousand twelve. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ABRAHAM SORY SANO, 14 Petitioner, 15 11-4172 16 v. NAC 17 18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, Esq., Yerman & 24 Associates, LLC, New York, New York. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Keith I. McManus, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Brendan 29 P. Hogan, Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, Civil 31 Division, United States Department 32 of Justice, Washington, D.C. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Abraham Sory Sano, a native and citizen of 6 Guinea, seeks review of a September 15, 2011, decision of 7 the BIA, denying his motion to reopen his removal 8 proceedings. In re Abraham Sory Sano, No. A072 435 656 9 (B.I.A. Sept. 15, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity 10 with the underlying facts and procedural history of the 11 case. 12 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 13 abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales,
448 F.3d 515, 517 14 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Here, because Sano’s motion 15 was indisputably time and numerically barred, see 8 U.S.C. 16 § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C), he was required to establish 17 materially “changed country conditions arising in [his] 18 country of nationality,” id., § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 19
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). 20 Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination 21 that Sano failed to satisfy this standard. See Jian Hui 22 Shao v. Mukasey,
546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008) (holding 2 1 that when the agency explicitly considers relevant evidence 2 of country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, this 3 Court reviews the agency’s factual findings for substantial 4 evidence). 5 First, because the evidence Sano submitted in support 6 of his motion did not rebut the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 7 prior adverse credibility finding, it was not error for the 8 BIA to rely on that finding in declining to afford 9 substantial weight to Sano’s affidavit in support of 10 reopening. See Qin Win Zheng v. Gonzales,
500 F.3d 143, 11 147-48 (2d Cir. 2007) (“The BIA’s use here of the IJ’s 12 unchallenged conclusion that Zheng was not credible in 13 support of its refusal to credit the authenticity of 14 [evidence submitted in support of a motion to reopen] was . 15 . . appropriate.”); accord Kaur v. B.I.A.,
413 F.3d 232, 234 16 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Second, the BIA did not err by 17 affording diminished weight to unsworn statements submitted 18 by Sano’s relatives, who, as the BIA noted, were interested 19 witnesses. See Matter of H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-,
25 I. & N. Dec. 20209, 215 (B.I.A. 2010)(giving diminished weight to letters 21 from relatives that were written by interested witnesses not 22 3 1 subject to cross-examination), abrogated on other grounds by 2 Hui Lin Huang v. Holder,
677 F.3d 130(2d Cir. 2012). 3 And third, consistent with the BIA’s finding, the 4 objective evidence Sano submitted in support of reopening 5 failed to demonstrate materially changed country conditions 6 in Guinea. Among other things, that evidence showed that 7 the violence prior to the 2010 election was instigated by 8 members of both the Malinke and Fulani/Peuhl ethnic groups; 9 government-led security forces were responsible for a 10 considerable portion of the violence and targeted, in 11 particular, members of the Fulani/Peuhl ethnic group; and, 12 following the election, Alpha Conde, a Malinke, was 13 inaugurated president. Taken together, these facts do not 14 demonstrate that members of the Malinke ethnic group, like 15 Sano, are now more susceptible to violence or persecution 16 than during the previous regime. But even assuming that 17 violence against Malinkes persists in Guinea, such 18 conditions would not differ materially from those Sano 19 described in his original asylum application. Because 20 substantial evidence supports the BIA’s country conditions 21 finding, we do not address its alternative finding regarding 22 relocation. 4 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 3 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 4 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 5 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 6 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 7 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 8 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 9 FOR THE COURT: 10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 11 12 5
Document Info
Docket Number: 11-4172
Citation Numbers: 495 F. App'x 181
Judges: Newman, Raggi, Droney
Filed Date: 9/10/2012
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024