NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 18-3825 KAMALESWARI BHAGEERATHARAN, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No.: BIA-1: A077-013-998) Immigration Judge: Hon. Frederic G. Leeds ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R 34.1(a) September 25, 2019 Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, McKEE, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 10, 2020 ) ___________ OPINION * ___________ McKee, Circuit Judge. Kamaleswari Bhageeratharan petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of her Motion to Reopen her application for asylum, withholding of removal and CAT relief * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. alleging that the BIA erred in analyzing her claim of changed country conditions. For the reasons that follow, we must dismiss her petition for review. 1 For Bhageeratharan to succeed, she must show that there are “changed country conditions” in Sri Lanka since the BIA’s decision to deny relief.2 A “change in conditions” normally requires material evidence that was not available when the BIA denied relief. 3 We review this denial of a Motion to Reopen for abuse of discretion. 4 I. Bhageeratharan has filed numerous untimely Motions to Reopen and exceeded the numerical limitations placed on such motions. 5 She now argues her asylum claim should be reconsidered because the Sri Lankan government has increased its mistreatment of those who share her Tamil ethnicity and status as a failed applicant for asylum. She offers evidence that, since her initial hearing in 2006, the frequency with which returning Tamils have been arrested, detained and tortured has increased. 6 Bhageeratharan relies upon various articles to support her claim of increased persecution of Tamils who failed to get asylum since 2006.7 She argues that this establishes “changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality.”8 1 Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), we have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal. 2 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). 3 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i). 4 Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166, 170 (3d Cir. 2002). 5 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A); see, e.g. App. I at 04. 6 Id. 7 App. II at 394–400. 8 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); App. I at 04–05. 2 The BIA concluded that she had failed to show sufficiently changed country conditions since her claim for asylum was denied. 9 Though she presented various articles regarding the mistreatment of Tamils, the BIA held that she failed to show this evidence of mistreatment pertained to similarly treated individuals. 10 We agree that the circumstances of the individuals referenced in those articles are clearly distinguishable from Bhageeratharan’s circumstances. Nevertheless, we are concerned by a statement the agency made in explaining its decision. The BIA stated that the evidence Bhageeratharan submitted showed only that many ethnic groups have been persecuted by the government, not that Tamils in particular have been targeted. 11 That “logic” would mean that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals