20-3999 Singh v. Garland BIA A205 586 261

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 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 16th day of December, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 MANPREET SINGH, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-3999 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Esq., Jackson 25 Heights, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Assistant 28 Attorney General; Anthony C. 29 Payne, Assistant Director; Raya 1 Jarawan, Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, 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 Manpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India,

11 seeks review of an October 28, 2020, decision of the BIA

12 denying his motion to reopen. In re Manpreet Singh, No. A205

13 586 261 (B.I.A. Oct. 28, 2020). We assume the parties’

14 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

15 As an initial matter, contrary to the Government’s

16 argument, Singh timely petitioned for review of the BIA’s

17 denial of his motion to reopen when he filed his petition on

18 the Monday following the Friday, November 27, 2020, deadline

19 given that the Court was administratively closed on that

20 Friday. See

(b)(1) (“The petition for review

21 must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the

22 final order of removal.”); Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1), (a)(3)(A)

23 (extending the filing deadline when the clerk’s office is

2 1 closed on the last day of the filing period). The only

2 decision before us is the BIA’s denial of Singh’s motion to

3 reopen. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Just.,

83, 89–90 (2d Cir. 2001). We review the BIA’s denial of a

5 motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and its finding that

6 country conditions have not changed for substantial evidence.

7 Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,

, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008).

8 In his motion to reopen, Singh asserted that members of

9 the Bharatiya Janata Party (“BJP”) and the police had recently

10 beaten his brother and detained and threatened his father in

11 an effort to locate him and punish his brother on account of

12 their support for the Akali Dal Mann Party. As support, he

13 submitted his own written statement and general country

14 conditions evidence.

15 It is undisputed that Singh’s 2020 motion to reopen was

16 untimely because he filed it almost three years after his

17 removal order became final in 2017. See 8 U.S.C.

18 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (establishing a 90-day deadline for

19 filing a motion to reopen);

(c)(2) (same).

20 Although this limitation does not apply if reopening is sought

21 to apply for asylum “based on changed country conditions 3 1 arising in the country of nationality or the country to which

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

3

(c)(3), the BIA did not err in finding that

4 this exception did not apply because Singh’s evidence did not

5 rebut the agency’s underlying adverse credibility

6 determination or establish changed conditions in India, see

7 Matter of F-S-N-,

, 3 (B.I.A. 2020) (“[T]o

8 prevail on a motion to reopen alleging changed country

9 conditions where the persecution claim was previously denied

10 based on an adverse credibility finding in the underlying

11 proceedings, the respondent must either overcome the prior

12 determination or show that the new claim is independent of

13 the evidence that was found to be not credible.”).

14 The BIA did not err in discounting Singh’s unsworn

15 statement as evidence of changed conditions because, in a

16 decision affirmed by this Court, Singh was previously found

17 not credible. See Y.C. v. Holder,

(2d Cir.

18 2013) (“We generally defer to the agency’s evaluation of the

19 weight to be afforded an applicant’s documentary evidence.”);

20 Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales,

, 146–49 (2d Cir. 2007)

21 (holding that the agency may decline to credit 4 1 unauthenticated evidence submitted with a motion to reopen by

2 an asylum applicant who was found not credible in the

3 underlying proceeding). Moreover, Singh’s new allegation,

4 that a different political party was targeting him because of

5 his support for the Akali Dal Mann Party, did not rebut the

6 underlying adverse credibility determination – which rejected

7 the entirety of his testimony – including his asserted

8 involvement in the Akali Dal Mann Party. See Kaur v. BIA,

9

(2d Cir. 2005) (finding no error in the

10 BIA’s determination that “evidence submitted by petitioner in

11 support of . . . motion was not ‘material’ because it did not

12 rebut the adverse credibility finding that provided the basis

13 for the IJ’s denial of petitioner’s underlying asylum

14 application”).

15 Because Singh failed to rebut the adverse credibility

16 determination, we need not consider his challenge to the BIA’s

17 alternative basis for denying his motion – his failure to

18 show changed conditions in India. See 8 U.S.C.

19 § 1229a(c)(7)(B), (C); Kaur,

; see also INS v.

20 Bagamasbad,

(1976) (“As a general rule courts

21 and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the 5 1 decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).

2 Regardless, the BIA reasonably found that Singh’s evidence

3 did not establish a material change for members of the Akali

4 Dal Mann Party, but rather evinced only a continuation of

5 conflicts between members of opposing political parties. See

6 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also In re S-Y-G-, 24 I.

7 & N. Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007) (“In determining whether

8 evidence accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates a

9 material change in country conditions that would justify

10 reopening, [the BIA] compare[s] the evidence of country

11 conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at

12 the time of the merits hearing below.”). Because Singh

13 failed to demonstrate a material change in conditions, the

14 BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to

15 reopen as untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C).

16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

17 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

18 stays VACATED.

19 FOR THE COURT: 20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 21 Clerk of Court

6