Singh v. Garland

20-3999
Singh v. Garland
BIA
A205 586 261
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
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 16th day of December, two thousand twenty-
5 two.
6
7 PRESENT:
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,
10 WILLIAM J. NARDINI,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 MANPREET SINGH,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 20-3999
18 NAC
19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Esq., Jackson
25 Heights, NY.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Assistant
28 Attorney General; Anthony C.
29 Payne, Assistant Director; Raya
1 Jarawan, Trial Attorney, Office of
2 Immigration Litigation, United
3 States Department of Justice,
4 Washington, DC.
5
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
9 is DENIED.
10 Petitioner Manpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India,
11 seeks review of an October 28, 2020, decision of the BIA
12 denying his motion to reopen. In re Manpreet Singh, No. A205
13 586 261 (B.I.A. Oct. 28, 2020). We assume the parties’
14 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
15 As an initial matter, contrary to the Government’s
16 argument, Singh timely petitioned for review of the BIA’s
17 denial of his motion to reopen when he filed his petition on
18 the Monday following the Friday, November 27, 2020, deadline
19 given that the Court was administratively closed on that
20 Friday. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review
21 must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the
22 final order of removal.”); Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1), (a)(3)(A)
23 (extending the filing deadline when the clerk’s office is
2
1 closed on the last day of the filing period). The only
2 decision before us is the BIA’s denial of Singh’s motion to
3 reopen. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 265 F.3d
4 83, 89–90 (2d Cir. 2001). We review the BIA’s denial of a
5 motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and its finding that
6 country conditions have not changed for substantial evidence.
7 Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008).
8 In his motion to reopen, Singh asserted that members of
9 the Bharatiya Janata Party (“BJP”) and the police had recently
10 beaten his brother and detained and threatened his father in
11 an effort to locate him and punish his brother on account of
12 their support for the Akali Dal Mann Party. As support, he
13 submitted his own written statement and general country
14 conditions evidence.
15 It is undisputed that Singh’s 2020 motion to reopen was
16 untimely because he filed it almost three years after his
17 removal order became final in 2017. See 8 U.S.C.
18 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (establishing a 90-day deadline for
19 filing a motion to reopen); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (same).
20 Although this limitation does not apply if reopening is sought
21 to apply for asylum “based on changed country conditions
3
1 arising in the country of nationality or the country to which
2 removal has been ordered,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii);
3 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3), the BIA did not err in finding that
4 this exception did not apply because Singh’s evidence did not
5 rebut the agency’s underlying adverse credibility
6 determination or establish changed conditions in India, see
7 Matter of F-S-N-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 1, 3 (B.I.A. 2020) (“[T]o
8 prevail on a motion to reopen alleging changed country
9 conditions where the persecution claim was previously denied
10 based on an adverse credibility finding in the underlying
11 proceedings, the respondent must either overcome the prior
12 determination or show that the new claim is independent of
13 the evidence that was found to be not credible.”).
14 The BIA did not err in discounting Singh’s unsworn
15 statement as evidence of changed conditions because, in a
16 decision affirmed by this Court, Singh was previously found
17 not credible. See Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir.
18 2013) (“We generally defer to the agency’s evaluation of the
19 weight to be afforded an applicant’s documentary evidence.”);
20 Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146–49 (2d Cir. 2007)
21 (holding that the agency may decline to credit
4
1 unauthenticated evidence submitted with a motion to reopen by
2 an asylum applicant who was found not credible in the
3 underlying proceeding). Moreover, Singh’s new allegation,
4 that a different political party was targeting him because of
5 his support for the Akali Dal Mann Party, did not rebut the
6 underlying adverse credibility determination – which rejected
7 the entirety of his testimony – including his asserted
8 involvement in the Akali Dal Mann Party. See Kaur v. BIA,
9 413 F.3d 232, 234 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding no error in the
10 BIA’s determination that “evidence submitted by petitioner in
11 support of . . . motion was not ‘material’ because it did not
12 rebut the adverse credibility finding that provided the basis
13 for the IJ’s denial of petitioner’s underlying asylum
14 application”).
15 Because Singh failed to rebut the adverse credibility
16 determination, we need not consider his challenge to the BIA’s
17 alternative basis for denying his motion – his failure to
18 show changed conditions in India. See 8 U.S.C.
19 § 1229a(c)(7)(B), (C); Kaur, 413 F.3d at 234; see also INS v.
20 Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts
21 and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the
5
1 decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).
2 Regardless, the BIA reasonably found that Singh’s evidence
3 did not establish a material change for members of the Akali
4 Dal Mann Party, but rather evinced only a continuation of
5 conflicts between members of opposing political parties. See
6 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also In re S-Y-G-, 24 I.
7 & N. Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007) (“In determining whether
8 evidence accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates a
9 material change in country conditions that would justify
10 reopening, [the BIA] compare[s] the evidence of country
11 conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at
12 the time of the merits hearing below.”). Because Singh
13 failed to demonstrate a material change in conditions, the
14 BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to
15 reopen as untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C).
16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
17 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
18 stays VACATED.
19 FOR THE COURT:
20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
21 Clerk of Court
6