Singh v. Garland

19-1784
Singh v. Garland
BIA
A206 086 354
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 TO 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 Thurgood Marshall
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 24th day of August, two thousand twenty-
5 one.
6
7 PRESENT:
8 GUIDO CALABRESI,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 STEVEN J. MENASHI,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 NISHAN SINGH,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 19-1784
18 NAC
19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Anas J. Ahmed, Esq., Pannun the
25 Firm, P.C., Jackson Heights, NY.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant
28 Attorney General; Holly M. Smith ,
29 Senior Litigation Counsel; Jesse
1 D. Lorenz, Trial Attorney, Office
2 of Immigration Litigation, United
3 States Department of Justice,
4 Washington, DC.
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 Petitioner Nishan Singh, a native and citizen of India,
10 seeks review of a May 22, 2019, decision of the BIA denying
11 his motion to reopen. In re Nishan Singh, No. A 206 086 354
12 (B.I.A. May 22, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity
13 with the underlying facts and procedural history.
14 The applicable standards of review are well
15 established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138,
16 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). Singh moved to reopen to reapply
17 for asylum, alleging that police had raided his home in
18 India and arrested and beat his brother. Singh argued that
19 these events demonstrated a change in conditions excusing
20 his untimely filing and established his prima facie
21 eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
22 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
23 Singh’s 2018 motion to reopen was untimely, as it was
2
1 filed two years after his 2016 removal order. See 8 U.S.C.
2 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (90-day period to move to reopen);
3 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (same). Although the deadline is
4 excused if reopening is sought to apply for asylum and the
5 petitioner demonstrates “changed country conditions arising
6 in the country of nationality or the country to which
7 removal has been ordered,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii);
8 see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), the BIA did not err in
9 finding that Singh failed to demonstrate such a change
10 here.
11 In support of his assertion that police raided his
12 house and arrested and beat his brother, Singh submitted
13 only his and his brother’s affidavits. The BIA was not
14 required to credit these affidavits, because Singh was
15 found not credible in the underlying proceedings and the
16 affidavits did not resolve the inconsistencies underlying
17 that prior determination. See Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d
18 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013) (“We defer to the agency’s
19 determination of the weight afforded to an alien’s
20 documentary evidence.”); Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500
21 F.3d 143, 146–49 (2d Cir. 2007) (finding reasonable BIA’s
3
1 decision not to credit documentary evidence presented to
2 motion to reopen where movant was found not credible in
3 underlying proceedings). Neither Singh’s nor his brother’s
4 affidavit resolved the inconsistencies that led to the
5 underlying adverse credibility determination. See Kaur v.
6 BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 234 (2d Cir. 2005). Singh’s allegation
7 of bias is unsupported and is belied by the BIA’s decision,
8 which shows that the BIA considered the evidence and
9 applied the appropriate legal standards. See INS v. Abudu,
10 485 U.S. 94, 107–10 (1988) (movant has “heavy burden” to show
11 reopening is warranted); Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517
12 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322–
13 23 (1992) for proposition that motions to reopen are
14 “disfavored”).
15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
16 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED
17 and stays VACATED.
18 FOR THE COURT:
19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
20 Clerk of Court
4