Zubar v. Barr

17-2449 Zubar v. Barr BIA A076 164 655/656/657/658 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 14th day of June, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, GERARD E. LYNCH, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ OLGA ZUBAR, ALEKSANDR ZUBAR, VLADIMIR ZUBAR, INNA ZUBAR, Petitioners, v. 17-2449 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: Alexander J. Segal, The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, P.L.L.C., New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director; Yedidya Cohen, Trial Attorney, 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. Petitioners Olga Zubar, Aleksandr Zubar, Vladimir Zubar,1 and Inna Zubar, who are family members and natives and citizens of Ukraine, seek review of a BIA decision denying their motion to reopen. In re Olga Zubar, Aleksandr Zubar, Vladimir Zubar, Inna Zubar, Nos. A 076 164 655/656/657/658 (B.I.A. July 13, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history, to which we refer only as needed to explain our decision to deny the petition. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). When the BIA considers evidence of country 1 The Zubars’ counsel has informed the Court that Vladimir Zubar died in April 2018. We therefore address the petition only as to the remaining family members. 2 conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, we review the BIA’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). An alien seeking to reopen may file one motion to reopen and may do so no later than 90 days after issuance of the final administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). These time and number limitations do not apply, however, if the motion is filed to permit application for asylum “based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, if such ...

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