Anwar v. Barr

18-2164 Anwar v. Barr BIA A095 102 165 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 13th day of September, two thousand 5 nineteen. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 MICHAEL H. PARK, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 NADEEM ANWAR, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-2164 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Yaniv Lavy, Feiner & Lavy, P.C., 25 New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 28 Attorney General; Claire L. 29 Workman, Senior Litigation 30 Counsel; John B. Holt, Trial 31 Attorney, Office of Immigration 32 Litigation, United States 33 Department of Justice, Washington, 34 DC. 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 Nadeem Anwar, a native and citizen of 6 Pakistan, seeks review of a June 22, 2018 decision of the BIA 7 denying his motion to reopen. In re Nadeem Anwar, No. A 095 8 102 165 (B.I.A. June 22, 2018). We assume the parties’ 9 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 10 in this case. 11 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 12 abuse of discretion. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 13 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). It is undisputed that Anwar’s 14 2018 motion to reopen was untimely as it was filed more than 15 10 years after the BIA’s decision affirming his removal order. 16 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). 17 Nevertheless, an applicant may, at any time, move to reopen 18 his case “based on changed country conditions arising in the 19 country of nationality or the country to which removal has 20 been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not 21 available and would not have been discovered or presented at 2 1 the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see 2 also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). To prevail on such a 3 motion, however, the applicant also must establish his prima 4 facie ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals