Rafiq v. Barr

18-373 Rafiq v. Barr BIA A073 612 832 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 16th day of September, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, ROBERT D. SACK, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges.* _____________________________________ AJMAL RAFIQ, AKA AJMAL CHAUDARY RAFIQ, Petitioner, v. 18-373 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Amy Nussbaum Gell, Gell & Gell, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Jeffrey R. Leist, Senior Litigation Counsel; Raya Jarawan, Trial Attorney, * Circuit Judge Peter W. Hall, originally a member of the panel, is currently unavailable. Circuit Judge Jon O. Newman has replaced Judge Hall on the panel for this matter. See 2d Cir. IOP E(b). Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Ajmal Rafiq, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks review of a January 11, 2018, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Ajmal Rafiq, No. A073 612 832 (B.I.A. Jan. 11, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. The applicable standards of review are well established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). In his motion to reopen, Rafiq asserted that in 2007, extremists in Pakistan attacked his brothers, killing one of them, and that he fears being kidnapped or killed because he is Ahmadi and he has ties to the United States. A noncitizen seeking to reopen removal proceedings must demonstrate his prima facie eligibility for relief from removal, “which means []he must show a ‘realistic chance’ that []he will be able to obtain such relief.” Id. at 168. The movant also must file a motion to reopen no later than 90 2 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). It is undisputed that Rafiq’s 2017 motion to reopen was untimely because it was filed more than eight years after his removal order became final in 2009. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. ...

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