20-3435 Ahmed v. Garland BIA A099 396 158

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 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 7th day of September, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MUNIR AHMED, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-3435 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, Esq., 24 New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Carl McIntyre, 28 Assistant Director; Gregory A. 29 Pennington, Jr., 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 Munir Ahmed, a native and citizen of Pakistan,

6 seeks review of a September 10, 2020, decision of the BIA

7 denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re

8 Munir Ahmed, No. A 099 396 158 (B.I.A. Sept. 10, 2020). We

9 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

10 procedural history.

11 Ahmed filed a motion to reopen to apply for asylum,

12 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

13 Against Torture, alleging that he had converted from Sunni to

14 Shia Islam and that conditions for Shia Muslims in Pakistan

15 had worsened since his hearing. His 2020 motion was untimely

16 filed more than 90 days after his removal order became final

17 in 2017, so he had to establish a material change in

18 conditions in Pakistan to excuse the deadline. See 8 U.S.C.

19 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), (ii);

(c)(2), (3)(ii).

20 We review the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen for abuse

21 of discretion and its determination of country conditions for 2 1 substantial evidence. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,

138, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008).

3 Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that

4 Ahmed did not establish changed conditions in Pakistan. His

5 conversion to Shia Islam is a change in his personal

6 circumstances, not a changed condition in Pakistan as

7 required to excuse the deadline for his motion to reopen.

8 See Wei Guang Wang v. BIA,

, 273–74 (2d Cir. 2006)

9 (holding that a “self-induced change in personal

10 circumstances cannot suffice” to show changed conditions

11 excusing the time limit on a motion to reopen). The BIA also

12 correctly “compare[d] the evidence of country conditions

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

14 of the merits hearing below.” Tanusantoso v. Barr,

694, 698 (2d Cir. 2020) (quotation marks omitted). That

16 evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Ahmed did not

17 establish a material change in conditions. A comparison of

18 the State Department’s 2016 and 2018 International Religious

19 Freedom Reports shows that in 2016 armed groups continued to

20 attack Shias, as well as Christians, Ahmadi Muslims, and Sufi

21 Muslims, but that in 2018, the number of attacks against Shias 3 1 declined. Certified Administrative Record at 206–07, 228,

2 264–65, 274–75. The government took steps to restrict

3 violence between Sunnis and Shias.

. The

4 record confirms that the Sunni terrorist group, Lashkar-e-

5 Jhangvi, targets Shias in Pakistan, and killed 2,700 Shia

6 Muslims between 2001 and 2019,

(2019 Annual Report

7 of U.S. Commission on Int’l Religious Freedom). This

8 evidence does not show that attacks on Shia Muslims had

9 increased since Ahmed’s hearing, and evidence of ongoing

10 violence is not evidence of a change in conditions. See In

11 re S-Y-G-,

(B.I.A. 2007).

12 Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s

13 conclusion that Ahmed failed to establish changed conditions

14 in Pakistan, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying

15 the motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 U.S.C.

16 § 1229a(c)(7)(C). That finding is dispositive of the motion

17 to reopen, so we do not need to reach the BIA’s alternative

18 determination that Ahmed failed to overcome the underlying

19 adverse credibility determination. Regardless, we find no

20 error in the BIA’s reliance on the adverse credibility

21 determination because Ahmed’s allegation that he had 4 1 converted to Shia Islam turned on his credibility and he did

2 not resolve the underlying issues, particularly his prior

3 knowing reliance on a false amnesty application to apply for

4 parole to visit Pakistan. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500

, 147–48 (2d Cir. 2007) (upholding BIA’s reliance in

6 underlying adverse credibility determination to reject

7 evidence presented with motion to reopen because “a single

8 false document or a single instance of false testimony may

9 (if attributable to the petitioner) infect the balance of the

10 alien’s uncorroborated or unauthenticated evidence” (quoting

11 Siewe v. Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2007))).

12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

13 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

14 stays VACATED.

15 FOR THE COURT: 16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 17 Clerk of Court

5