18-2430 Medina-Elliot v. Barr BIA Straus, IJ A078 998 680

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 17th day of September, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MARCELINA TOLA MEDINA-ELLIOT, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-2430 17 NAC 18 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Joshua E. Bardavid, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Brianne Whelan 28 Cohen, Senior Litigation Counsel; 29 Laura M.L. Maroldy, Trial 30 Attorney, Office of Immigration 1 Litigation, United States 2 Department of Justice, Washington, 3 DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

8 is DENIED.

9 Petitioner Marcelina Tola Medina-Elliot, a native and

10 citizen of Peru, seeks review of an August 14, 2018,

11 decision of the BIA affirming a February 14, 2018, decision

12 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her motion to

13 reopen. In re Marcelina Tola Medina-Elliot, No. A078 998

14 680 (B.I.A. Aug. 14, 2018), aff’g No. A078 998 680 (Immig.

15 Ct. Hartford Feb. 14, 2018). We assume the parties’

16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural

17 history.

18 We review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the

19 sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland

20 Sec.,

(2d Cir. 2006). We review the

21 denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and

22 the country conditions determination for substantial

23 evidence. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,

, 168–69 2 1 (2d Cir. 2008).

2 The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying

3 Medina-Elliot’s motion to reopen, which was based on her

4 fear of violence against women in Peru. It is undisputed

5 that her 2018 motion to reopen was untimely because it was

6 filed more than eleven years after she was ordered removed

7 in 2006. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (providing 90-

8 day deadline for filing motion to reopen); 8 C.F.R.

9 § 1003.23(b)(1) (same). Although the time limitation does

10 not apply to motions to reopen to apply for asylum “based

11 on changed country conditions arising in the country of

12 nationality,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R.

13 § 1003.23(b)(4)(i), the agency did not err in finding that

14 Medina-Elliot failed to demonstrate such conditions.

15 “In determining whether evidence accompanying a motion

16 to reopen demonstrates a material change in country

17 conditions that would justify reopening, [the agency]

18 compare[s] the evidence of country conditions submitted

19 with the motion to those that existed at the time of the

20 merits hearing below.” In re S-Y-G-,

,

21 253 (B.I.A. 2007). As the agency found, Medina-Elliot’s 3 1 evidence demonstrated that violence against women had been

2 a problem impacting a significant majority of Peruvian

3 women since the time of her 2006 proceedings. Her

4 assertion of a change in agency law and her prima facie

5 eligibility for relief are not bases for excusing an

6 untimely filing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i);

7

(b)(1).

8 Accordingly, because Medina-Elliot did not establish a

9 material change in country conditions, the agency did not

10 abuse its discretion in denying her motion to reopen as

11 untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C). We do not reach

12 the BIA’s alternative dispositive determination that she

13 did not establish her prima facie eligibility for relief.

14 See

(b)(1), (3); see also INS v.

15 Bagamasbad,

(1976) (“As a general rule

16 courts and agencies are not required to make findings on

17 issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results

18 they reach.”).

19

20

21 4 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

2 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED

3 and stays VACATED.

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

5