17-2956 Singh v. Barr BIA A200 291 187

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 30th day of April, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 NAMINDER SINGH, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-2956 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 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; Anthony C. 27 Payne, Assistant Director; Raya 28 Jarawan, 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 Naminder Singh, a native and citizen of India,

6 seeks review of a September 6, 2017, decision of the BIA,

7 denying his motion to reopen. In re Naminder Singh, No. A200

8 291 187 (B.I.A. Sept. 6, 2017). We assume the parties’

9 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history

10 in this case.

11 The applicable standards of review are well established.

12 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir.

13 2008). In his motion to reopen, Singh argued that changed

14 conditions in India should excuse the untimely filing of his

15 motion and, as support, he submitted affidavits asserting

16 that that police continued to look for him and would kill him

17 in India on account of his membership in the Akali Dal Mann

18 political party and his Sikh faith.

19 It is undisputed that Singh’s 2017 motion was untimely

20 because it was filed two years after his removal order became

21 final in 2015. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. 2 1 § 1003.2(c)(2). However, the time limitation for filing a

2 motion to reopen does not apply if reopening is sought to

3 apply for asylum and the motion “is based on changed country

4 conditions arising in the country of nationality or the

5 country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence

6 is material and was not available and would not have been

7 discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.”

8 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii);

(c)(3). The

9 BIA did not err in finding that Singh failed to demonstrate

10 such conditions.

11 The BIA reasonably declined to credit affidavits

12 purportedly from Singh’s father, brother, and uncle because

13 the affidavits were not accompanied by the authors’

14 identification documents, the mailing envelopes, or the

15 authors’ fingerprints despite the notary indicating that

16 their fingerprints were affixed and because Singh was found

17 not credible in his underlying proceedings. See Xiao Ji Chen

18 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

(2d Cir. 2006)

19 (providing that the weight afforded evidence in immigration

20 proceedings “lies largely” within agency discretion (internal

21 quotation marks and brackets omitted)); see Qin Wen Zheng v. 3 1 Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2007) (holding that

2 the agency may decline to credit subjective evidence

3 submitted with a motion to reopen by an alien who was found

4 not credible in the underlying proceeding).

5 Furthermore, the BIA did not err in concluding that the

6 most recent country conditions evidence, which did not

7 discuss any violence involving Mann Party members or Sikhs,

8 failed to demonstrate a material change in conditions since

9 Singh’s hearing before the IJ. See In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N.

10 Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007) (“In determining whether evidence

11 accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates a material

12 change in country conditions that would justify reopening,

13 [the BIA] compare[s] the evidence of country conditions

14 submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time

15 of the merits hearing below.”).

16 Accordingly, because the BIA reasonably concluded that

17 Singh failed to demonstrate a material change in conditions

18 in India, it did not abuse its discretion in denying his

19 motion as untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), (ii).

20 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

21 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 4 1 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,

2 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition

3 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument

4 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of

5 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule

6 34.1(b).

7 FOR THE COURT: 8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 9 Clerk of Court 10

5