17-3693 Markaj v. Barr BIA A096 263 931

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 7th day of July, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 DENADA MARKAJ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-3693 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Erin O’Neil-Baker, Hartford 24 Legal Group, LLC, Hartford, CT. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 27 Attorney General; Leslie McKay, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel; 29 Madeline Henley, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 31 United States Department of 32 Justice, 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 Denada Markaj, a native and citizen of

6 Albania, seeks review of a January 31, 2018 decision of the

7 BIA, denying her motion to reopen. In re Denada Markaj, No.

8 A096 263 931 (B.I.A. Jan. 31, 2018). We assume the parties’

9 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

10 The applicable standards of review are well established.

11 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir.

12 2008). In her motion to reopen, Markaj argued that

13 conditions in Albania had materially changed for members of

14 both the Greek Orthodox church and a proposed social group of

15 unaccompanied women such that she was eligible for asylum.

16 It is undisputed that Markaj’s 2017 motion to reopen was

17 untimely filed more than eight years after her removal order

18 became final in 2009. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i);

19

(c)(2). However, the time limitation does

20 not apply if reopening is sought to apply for asylum and the

21 motion “is based on changed country conditions arising in the

22 country of nationality or the country to which removal has

2 1 been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not

2 available and would not have been discovered or presented at

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

4

(c)(3)(ii). The BIA did not err in finding

5 that Markaj failed to demonstrate such conditions.

6 As the BIA found, Markaj’s evidence does not discuss the

7 persecution of any Greek Orthodox practitioners, much less

8 increased persecution. Further, the BIA reasonably concluded

9 that evidence of sporadic attacks against ethnically Greek

10 Albanians was not material because Markaj is not ethnically

11 Greek and such incidents were on the decline. See 8 U.S.C.

12 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).

13 The BIA also did not err in concluding that Markaj had

14 not established that conditions had materially changed for

15 her proposed social group of unaccompanied women. Although

16 the country conditions evidence states that Albanian women

17 are subject to employment and societal discrimination and

18 domestic violence, it does not discuss unaccompanied women

19 and thus does not establish that such women are viewed as a

20 distinct group in Albania or that conditions for such women

21 have materially changed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii);

22 see also In re M-E-V-G-,

(B.I.A.

3 1 2014) (providing standard for social group).

2 Accordingly, because Markaj did not establish a material

3 change in country conditions, the BIA did not abuse its

4 discretion in denying her motion to reopen as untimely. See

5 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C). Because this finding is

6 dispositive, we do not reach her arguments regarding her prima

7 facie eligibility for relief.

8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

9 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

10 stays VACATED.

11 FOR THE COURT: 12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 13 Clerk of Court

4