18-2410 Kabir v. Barr BIA A070 582 946 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 22nd day of April, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 8 Chief Judge, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 MICHAEL H. PARK, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 MOHAMMED KABIR, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-2410 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Salim Sheikh, Esq., New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Mary Jane Candaux, 28 Assistant Director; Stephanie E. 29 Beckett, Trial Attorney, Office of 1 Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, DC.

4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

7 is DENIED.

8 Petitioner Mohammed Kabir, a native and citizen of

9 Bangladesh, seeks review of a July 16, 2018 decision of the

10 BIA denying his motion to reopen as untimely. In re Mohammed

11 Kabir, No. A 070 582 946 (B.I.A. July 16, 2018). We assume

12 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

13 procedural history in this case.

14 We review the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen for

15 abuse of discretion but review any finding regarding changed

16 country conditions for substantial evidence. Jian Hui Shao

17 v. Mukasey,

, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). An alien

18 seeking to reopen proceedings may file only one motion to

19 reopen no later than 90 days after the date on which

20 the final administrative decision was rendered. 8 U.S.C.

21 § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i);

(c)(2). Kabir’s

22 January 2018 motion to reopen was untimely filed more than 17

2 1 years after his 2000 removal order. The 90-day time

2 limitation does not apply if reopening is sought to apply for

3 asylum “based on changed country conditions arising in the

4 country of nationality or the country to which removal has

5 been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not

6 available and would not have been discovered or presented at

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

8 see also

(c)(3)(ii). Here, the BIA

9 reasonably concluded that Kabir’s evidence did not establish

10 such a change.

11 Kabir argues that conditions have worsened for Jatiya

12 Party members like himself. “In determining whether evidence

13 accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates a material

14 change in country conditions that would justify reopening,

15 [the agency] compare[s] the evidence of country conditions

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

17 of the merits hearing below.” In re S-Y-G-,

247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007). In support of reopening, Kabir

19 submitted news articles and State Department Human Rights

20 Reports for Bangladesh. The articles report that the Jatiya

21 Party chairman was detained in a hospital in 2013 after he

3 1 threatened to commit suicide if arrested and a former Jatiya

2 Party leader was murdered by unknown assailants in 2016.

3 Certified Administrative Record at 71–77. The articles also

4 reflect general religious and political violence in

5 Bangladesh and the Awami League’s crackdown on political

6 dissent.

at 80–90. The 2015 and 2016 State Department

7 reports similarly discuss that crackdown and political and

8 religious violence, but the reports do not mention any

9 specific targeting of the Jatiya Party, which the 2016 report

10 characterizes as the “official opposition party” and “part of

11 the ruling coalition.”

.

12 The record reflects similar conditions at the time of

13 Kabir’s proceedings before the IJ in 1998. At that time, the

14 Awami League was in power, and political violence in

15 Bangladesh was widespread.

.

16 Accordingly, because the evidence did not reflect a material

17 change for members of the Jatiya Party, the BIA did not abuse

18 its discretion in denying Kabir’s motion as untimely. See 8

19 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C). Because the denial of the motion

20 as untimely is dispositive, we do not reach Kabir’s additional

21 arguments regarding the merits of his underlying claims for

4 1 relief.

2 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

3 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

4 stays VACATED.

5 FOR THE COURT: 6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 7 Clerk of Court

5