Kaur v. Lynch
662 F. App'x 45
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Amarjit Kaur, an Indian national, sought review of the BIA’s December 12, 2013 denial of her fifth motion to reopen removal proceedings.
- Kaur had been ordered removed in absentia in 1998; her September 2013 motion was therefore untimely and number-barred.
- Kaur asserted police continue to seek her for past political activities (Sikh separatist involvement), a claim she had raised in prior motions.
- She submitted country‑conditions evidence (news articles, letters) alleging continuing incidents of police abuse and isolated torture of Sikhs since 1998.
- Kaur also argued ineffective assistance of counsel in the original proceedings led to her removal in absentia; the BIA and this Court declined to reconsider the issue under law‑of‑the‑case principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the untimely, successive motion to reopen should be excused by a material change in country conditions | Kaur: police still pursue/abuse Sikhs; new incidents demonstrate changed conditions since 1998 | Gov't: evidence shows continuation, not material change; motion is time‑ and number‑barred | Denied — evidence showed continuation of prior conditions, not a material change sufficient to excuse time/number limits |
| Whether letters from relatives and local leaders and news articles warranted reopening | Kaur: submitted letters/articles showing ongoing arrests, torture, deaths of Sikhs | Gov't: these documents are weak, corroborative value limited; do not show increased risk since 1998 | Denied — BIA permissibly gave little weight to those letters and found record insufficient to establish material change |
| Whether prior ruling on counsel ineffectiveness should be revisited in motion to reopen | Kaur: ineffective assistance led to removal in absentia; merits warrant reopening | Gov't: issue previously decided; motion to reopen cannot relitigate prior, longstanding evidence | Denied — court adhered to law‑of‑the‑case and declined to entertain the previously resolved claim |
| Whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen | Kaur: BIA’s assessment of country conditions and evidence was incorrect | Gov't: BIA reasonably evaluated the record and applied legal standards | Denied — appellate review finds no abuse of discretion in BIA’s decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 265 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2001) (scope of review limited to BIA decision)
- Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard of review for denial of motion to reopen is abuse of discretion)
- Norani v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2006) (new evidence must show changed circumstances to excuse time/number bars)
- Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008) (appellate deference to BIA determination on country conditions evidence)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (BIA may discount letters from interested witnesses)
- Johnson v. Holder, 564 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2009) (motions to reopen require new evidence; law‑of‑the‑case doctrine applies)
- Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard for assessing documentary evidence and BIA’s credibility assessments)