Selmani v. Holder

12-2004-ag
Selmani v. Holder
BIA
A088 377 943
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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 25th day of February, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT: REENA RAGGI,
7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
8 GERARD E. LYNCH,
9 Circuit Judges.
10
11 _____________________________________
12
13 BESIM SELMANI,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 12-2004
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Marotta, Vernon, NJ.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy
26 Assistant Attorney General; Terri J.
27 Scadron, Assistant Director; Anthony
28 W. Norwood, Senior Litigation
29 Counsel, Office of Immigration
30 Litigation, United States Department
31 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 Besim Selmani, a native of the former
6 Yugoslavia and citizen of Serbia, seeks review of the April
7 19, 2012, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen.
8 See In re Besim Selmani, No. A088 377 943 (B.I.A. Apr. 19,
9 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
10 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
11 The BIA’s denial of Selmani’s motion to reopen as
12 untimely was not an abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA,
13 413 F.3d 232, 233-34 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). A motion
14 to reopen generally must be filed no later than 90 days
15 after the date on which the final administrative decision
16 has been rendered in the proceedings sought to be reopened.
17 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
18 There is no dispute that Selmani’s November 2011 motion was
19 untimely, as the final administrative decision was issued
20 more than a year earlier. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i);
21 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Although the time limitation does
22 not apply if the motion is “based on changed circumstances
2
1 arising in the country of nationality or in the country to
2 which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is
3 material and was not available and could not have been
4 discovered or presented at the previous hearing,” 8 C.F.R.
5 § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii),
6 substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that
7 Selmani failed to demonstrate materially changed conditions
8 in Kosovo, see Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169
9 (2d Cir. 2008).
10 While the evidence Selmani submitted with his motion to
11 reopen details the trial of an individual who allegedly
12 assassinated members of the Democratic League of Kosovo
13 (“LDK”), a political organization in which Selmani had been
14 active, because those assassinations occurred between 1999
15 and 2003, they do not indicate any change in conditions
16 since the time of his hearing. See In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N.
17 Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2007). Moreover, the prosecution of the
18 individual alleged to be responsible for those killings does
19 not indicate a deterioration of conditions for members of
20 the LDK in Kosovo. Accordingly, we identify no abuse of
21 discretion in the BIA’s determination that the evidence
22 Selmani submitted did not establish either a material change
3
1 in country conditions in Kosovo or his prima facie
2 eligibility for relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii);
3 INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988); Jian Hui Shao v.
4 Mukasey, 546 F.3d at 169.
5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
6 DENIED.
7 FOR THE COURT:
8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
9
10
4