17-824 Singh v. Sessions BIA A096 200 156 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 20th day of August, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 GURJIT SINGH, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-824 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Fremont, CA. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Terri J. 27 Scadron, Assistant Director; Siu 28 P. Wong, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

4 is DENIED.

5 Petitioner Gurjit Singh, a native and citizen of India,

6 seeks review of a March 3, 2017, decision of the BIA denying

7 Singh’s fourth motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In

8 re Gurjit Singh, No. A 096 200 156 (B.I.A. Mar. 3, 2017). We

9 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

10 procedural history in this case.

11 We review the BIA’s denial of Singh’s motion to reopen

12 for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales,

,

13 517 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the BIA’s factual findings

14 regarding country conditions under the substantial evidence

15 standard. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,

, 169

16 (2d Cir. 2008). An alien seeking to reopen proceedings may

17 file one motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the

18 final administrative decision is rendered. 8 U.S.C.

19 § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i);

(c)(2). Singh’s

20 fourth motion to reopen, filed eight years after his final

21 order of removal, was untimely and number barred.

22 However, the time and number limitations do not apply

2 1 if the motion is filed to apply for asylum “based on

2 changed country conditions arising in the country of

3 nationality or the country to which removal has been

4 ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available

5 and would not have been discovered or presented at the

6 previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see

7 also

(c)(3)(ii). Evidence is not

8 “previously unavailable” if it “could have been presented

9 at the hearing before the IJ,” Norani v. Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2006), and in reviewing whether there has

11 been a change, the BIA compares the country conditions at

12 the time of the hearing with those at the time of the

13 motion to reopen, In re S-Y-G-,

, 253

14 (BIA 2007).

15 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that

16 Singh failed to establish changed country conditions. As in

17 his three other motions, Singh alleged that the Indian police

18 continued to search for him and were harassing his family and

19 searching their home. Other than alleging specific visits

20 and threats, these allegations are indistinguishable from

21 those Singh made in his previous motions to reopen. See

22 Norani,

; In re S-Y-G-,

3 1 253. Moreover, we have already upheld the BIA’s conclusion

2 that those allegations did not amount to changed country

3 conditions. See Singh v. Holder,

, 121-22

4 (2d Cir. 2013); Singh v. Lynch,

(2d

5 Cir. 2015).

6 In addition, the allegations reflect a continuation of

7 the circumstances underlying Singh’s original asylum claim.

8 Because Singh’s original claim was denied on credibility

9 grounds, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to

10 credit Singh’s family members’ affidavits, which are

11 essentially identical, and which describe the arrests as to

12 which Singh was found not credible. Qin Wen Zheng v.

13 Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2007) (holding that BIA

14 may rely on underlying adverse credibility determination to

15 reject new evidence that relies on the same facts).

16 Nor does Singh’s other evidence establish changed

17 conditions. The news articles describing police actions

18 against Punjabi Sikhs and their political leaders echo

19 similar events described in articles Singh submitted during

20 his 2007 hearing. And the State Department’s 2015 Country

21 Report documents conditions similar to those in the 2006

22 Report. See In re S-Y-G-,

.

4 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

2 DENIED.

3 FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

5