Hadj Djelloul v. Garland
Hadj Djelloul v. Garland
Opinion
18-3388 Hadj Djelloul v. Garland BIA A076 101 378
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 14th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 MEHDI HADJ DJELLOUL, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-3388 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 1 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Alexis Ann Dutt, Esq., Karam Law, 25 Bloomington, MN. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Jessica E. Burns, Senior 28 Litigation Counsel; Claire L. 29 Workman, Senior Litigation 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 Counsel, Office of Immigration 2 Litigation, United States 3 Department of Justice, Washington, 4 DC. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
9 is DENIED.
10 Petitioner Mehdi Hadj Djelloul, a native and citizen of
11 Algeria, seeks review of an October 11, 2018 decision of the
12 BIA, denying his third motion to reopen. In re Mehdi Hadj
13 Djelloul, No. A076 101 378 (B.I.A. Oct. 11, 2018). We assume
14 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
15 procedural history.
16 We review constitutional claims and questions of law de
17 novo. See Pierre v. Holder,
588 F.3d 767, 772(2d Cir. 2009).
18 We review Hadj Djelloul’s motions to reopen for abuse of
19 discretion, and we review the BIA and IJ’s country condition
20 findings under the substantial evidence standard. See Jian
21 Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
546 F.3d 138, 168-69(2d Cir. 2008).
22 In his motion to reopen, Hadj Djelloul asserted that he
23 converted to Catholicism in the United States and feared
24 persecution in Algeria on account of his religion.
2 1 It is undisputed that, absent an applicable exception,
2 Hadj Djelloul’s 2018 motion to reopen was untimely and number-
3 barred because it was his third motion to reopen and was filed
4 more than 15 years after his removal order became final in
5 2002. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R.
6 § 1003.2(c)(2). An exception to the statutory and regulatory
7 time and number limitations is available, however, if
8 reopening is sought to apply for asylum and the motion “is
9 based on [evidence of] changed country conditions arising in
10 the country of nationality or the country to which removal
11 has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not
12 available and would not have been discovered or presented at
13 the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii);
14
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3). The BIA did not err in finding that
15 Hadj Djelloul failed to provide evidence of such changed
16 country conditions.
17 As an initial matter, we reject Hadj Djelloul’s arguments
18 that the BIA violated the Constitution and misinterpreted the
19 law in concluding that his changed personal circumstances in
20 the United States, namely, his religious conversion, did not
21 satisfy the changed country conditions exception to the time
22 and number limits for motions to reopen. See Li Yong Zheng 3 1 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
416 F.3d 129, 130–31 (2d Cir. 2005);
2 Yuen Jin v. Mukasey,
538 F.3d 143, 157(2d Cir. 2008) (“[A]n
3 alien who has already filed one asylum application, been
4 adjudicated removable and ordered deported, and who has
5 nevertheless remained in the country illegally for several
6 years, does not have a liberty or property interest in a
7 discretionary grant of asylum.”);
id. at 158(“Aliens who
8 disregard a final removal order and remain in the country
9 illegally are not similarly situated to aliens who have
10 complied with a final order but subsequently reenter the
11 United States and try to seek relief.”).
12 We also reject Hadj Djelloul’s religious freedom claim.
13 First, it bears noting that his motion to reopen is subject
14 to the changed country conditions exception because of his
15 failure to comply with his removal order – not because of his
16 religion. Further, he did not show that his religious
17 practice has been or will be restricted by the disallowance
18 of his changed country conditions argument. See Burwell v.
19 Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.,
573 U.S. 682, 694–95 (2014); Navajo
20 Nation v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
535 F.3d 1058, 1069–70 (9th Cir.
21 2008) (“Under [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act], a
22 ‘substantial burden’ is imposed only when individuals are 4 1 forced to choose between following the tenets of their
2 religion and receiving a governmental benefit . . . or coerced
3 to act contrary to their religious beliefs by the threat of
4 civil or criminal sanctions . . . .” (internal citations
5 omitted)).
6 “In determining whether evidence accompanying a motion
7 to reopen demonstrates a material change in country
8 conditions that would justify reopening, [the BIA] compare[s]
9 the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion
10 to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing
11 below.” In re S-Y-G,
24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253(B.I.A. 2007).
12 As the BIA found, Hadj Djelloul did not establish worsened
13 conditions for Catholics in Algeria since the time of his
14 2000 hearing. Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its
15 discretion in denying his motion to reopen as untimely and
16 number-barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C).
17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
18 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
19 stays VACATED.
20 FOR THE COURT: 21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 22 Clerk of Court
5
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished