Uddin-Nessa v. Barr

19-1105 Uddin-Nessa v. Barr BIA A200 239 856 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 15th day of September, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 AHMED SHAFIQ UDDIN-NESSA, AKA 14 MOHAMED SHAFIQ AHMED, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-1105 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Marotta, Vernon, NJ. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Anthony P. 28 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 29 Sheri R. Glaser, Trial Attorney, 1 Office of Immigration Litigation, 2 United States Department of 3 Justice, Washington, DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. 9 Petitioner Ahmed Shafiq Uddin-Nessa, a native and citizen 10 of Bangladesh, seeks review of a March 28, 2019 decision of 11 the BIA, denying his motion to reopen. In re Ahmed Shafiq 12 Uddin-Nessa, No. A200 239 856 (B.I.A. Mar. 28, 2019). We 13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 14 procedural history. 15 The applicable standards of review are well established. 16 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 17 2008). In his motion to reopen, Uddin-Nessa argued that 18 conditions in Bangladesh had worsened for members of the 19 Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”) and that police in 20 Bangladesh sought to arrest him in 2017 on account of his 21 activities with that party before he came to the United States 22 in 2011. As support, he submitted an affidavit from his 23 sister, a warrant for his arrest obtained by his sister, and 2 1 general country conditions evidence. 2 It is undisputed that Uddin-Nessa’s 2018 motion was 3 untimely because it was filed two years after his removal 4 order became final in 2016. See 8 U.S.C. 5 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). However, the 6 time limitation for filing a motion to reopen does not apply 7 ...

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