MD Saydur v. HolderMD Saydur v. Holder
Case Information
*1 13-2610 Saydur v. Holder
BIA Sichel, IJ A070 895 062 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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 13 th day of February, two thousand fifteen.
PRESENT:
DENNIS JACOBS,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
Circuit Judges .
_____________________________________
MD Saydur, AKA Mohammed Saydur,
Petitioner , v. 13-2610 NAC ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent .
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Thomas Edward Moseley, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
General; John W. Blakeley, Senior Litigation Counsel; Jesse Lloyd Busen, Attorney, Office of *2 Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.
MD Saydur, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of the June 14, 2013 decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re MD Saydur a.k.a. Mohammed Saydur , No. A070 895 062 (B.I.A. June 14, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse
of discretion, “mindful that motions to reopen ‘are
disfavored.’”
Ali v. Gonzales
,
However, the 90-day limitation period does not apply to a motion to reopen that is “based on changed circumstances *3 arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). “A motion to reopen proceedings for the purpose of submitting an application for relief must be accompanied by the appropriate application for relief and all supporting documentation.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
Here, it is undisputed that Saydur's motion to reopen
was untimely because it was filed in April 2013, more than
two years after the order of removal became final in
November 2010. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in
concluding that Saydur's failure to include an asylum
application with his motion to reopen precluded it from
considering his evidence of changed country conditions, as
“[a] motion to reopen proceedings for the purpose of
submitting an application for relief must be accompanied by
the appropriate application for relief and all supporting
documentation.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1);
see also
Joaquin-Porras v. Gonzales
,
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for *5 1 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 2 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 3
4
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 7 8
9