19-1784 Singh v. Garland BIA A206 086 354 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 24th day of August, two thousand twenty- 5 one. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 GUIDO CALABRESI, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 NISHAN SINGH, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-1784 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Anas J. Ahmed, Esq., Pannun the 25 Firm, P.C., Jackson Heights, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Holly M. Smith , 29 Senior Litigation Counsel; Jesse 1 D. Lorenz, Trial Attorney, Office 2 of Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC.

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 Nishan Singh, a native and citizen of India,

10 seeks review of a May 22, 2019, decision of the BIA denying

11 his motion to reopen. In re Nishan Singh, No. A 206 086 354

12 (B.I.A. May 22, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity

13 with the underlying facts and procedural history.

14 The applicable standards of review are well

15 established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,

,

16 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008). Singh moved to reopen to reapply

17 for asylum, alleging that police had raided his home in

18 India and arrested and beat his brother. Singh argued that

19 these events demonstrated a change in conditions excusing

20 his untimely filing and established his prima facie

21 eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

22 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

23 Singh’s 2018 motion to reopen was untimely, as it was

2 1 filed two years after his 2016 removal order. See 8 U.S.C.

2 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (90-day period to move to reopen);

3

(c)(2) (same). Although the deadline is

4 excused if reopening is sought to apply for asylum and the

5 petitioner demonstrates “changed country conditions arising

6 in the country of nationality or the country to which

7 removal has been ordered,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii);

8 see

(c)(3)(ii), the BIA did not err in

9 finding that Singh failed to demonstrate such a change

10 here.

11 In support of his assertion that police raided his

12 house and arrested and beat his brother, Singh submitted

13 only his and his brother’s affidavits. The BIA was not

14 required to credit these affidavits, because Singh was

15 found not credible in the underlying proceedings and the

16 affidavits did not resolve the inconsistencies underlying

17 that prior determination. See Y.C. v. Holder,

(2d Cir. 2013) (“We defer to the agency’s

19 determination of the weight afforded to an alien’s

20 documentary evidence.”); Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500

, 146–49 (2d Cir. 2007) (finding reasonable BIA’s

3 1 decision not to credit documentary evidence presented to

2 motion to reopen where movant was found not credible in

3 underlying proceedings). Neither Singh’s nor his brother’s

4 affidavit resolved the inconsistencies that led to the

5 underlying adverse credibility determination. See Kaur v.

6 BIA,

(2d Cir. 2005). Singh’s allegation

7 of bias is unsupported and is belied by the BIA’s decision,

8 which shows that the BIA considered the evidence and

9 applied the appropriate legal standards. See INS v. Abudu,

10

, 107–10 (1988) (movant has “heavy burden” to show

11 reopening is warranted); Ali v. Gonzales,

, 517

12 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting INS v. Doherty,

, 322–

13 23 (1992) for proposition that motions to reopen are

14 “disfavored”).

15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

16 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED

17 and stays VACATED.

18 FOR THE COURT: 19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 20 Clerk of Court

4