FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 11, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court SHEKHROZ MUKUMOV, Petitioner, v. No. 20-9517 (Petition for Review) JEFFREY ROSEN, Acting United States Attorney General, 1 Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before HARTZ, KELLY, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Shekhroz Mukumov, a native and citizen of Uzbekistan, petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his second motion to reopen his asylum proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny Mr. Mukumov’s petition. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining 1 On December 24, 2020, Jeffrey Rosen became Acting Attorney General of the United States. Consequently, his name has been substituted for William P. Barr as Respondent. See Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. that he failed to submit material evidence of changed country conditions in Uzbekistan that warranted reopening. And the changed personal circumstances he alleged cannot support his untimely second motion to reopen after a final order of removal. I. BACKGROUND In our prior decision in this case we detailed the facts surrounding Mr. Mukumov’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). See Mukumov v. Barr, 781 F. App’x 762, 764-65 (10th Cir. 2019). Without repeating those background facts, we describe the additional facts necessary to resolve the current petition. After the BIA affirmed the denial of Mr. Mukumov’s asylum application, he filed two motions to reopen the proceedings. In the first motion, he asserted “new and changed circumstances” in Uzbekistan. Admin. R., Vol. 1 at 211. These new circumstances consisted of the Uzbek authorities’ discovery of his presence in the United States, their anticipated discovery that he had applied for asylum, and their knowledge that he attended church in the United States. Mr. Mukumov thus alleged a threat of harm based on his asylum-seeking and religious practice. This differed from the claim raised in his initial asylum application, which alleged persecution by his former employer, who owned a construction company in Uzbekistan, based on membership in his family and his political opinions. The BIA denied for several reasons the first motion to reopen, which was filed in December 2018. Mr. Mukumov had failed to submit a new asylum application, as 2 the regulations required. Almost all the evidence was previously available and could have been presented to the immigration judge (IJ). Mr. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals