Sukhraj Kaur v. Board of Immigration Appeals

413 F.3d 232 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 22, 2005

Full text

Lakhwinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS, Respondent

SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is hereby DENIED. Petitioner Lakhwinder Singh (“Singh”), a native and citizen of India, petitions this Court for review of an April 21, 2003 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen. The BIA declined to reconsider its earlier order of October 21, 2002, affirming, without opinion, the decision of an Immigration Judge (“U”). The IJ rejected Singh’s application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (“INA”), see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a), 1231(b)(3), and denied him relief under Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), adopted Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85; 8 C.F.R. *342 § 208.16. Furthermore, the IJ directed Singh’s removal from the United States. Familiarity by the parties is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues. In addition to challenging the BIA’s April 21, 2003 order, Singh contests the BIA’s October 21, 2002 order affirming the IJ’s denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Because Singh did not timely appeal this decision, we lack jurisdiction to review it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405-06, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. D.O.J., 265 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir.2001). We review denials of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion, reversing only “where the Board’s decision provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs' from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where the Board has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Zhao, 265 F.3d at 93 (citations omitted). We hold that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion where the supporting documents Singh provided do not indicate that similarly situated individuals were being harassed for religious or political activities, or do not describe acts against Sikhs in Singh’s native Punjab. The articles and affidavit Singh provided the BIA are simply not similar enough to Singh’s purported persecution for us to conclude that the BIA abused its discretion in declining to reopen the case. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the petition for review is hereby DENIED.

Parentheticals

concluding that the BIA did not err in finding petitioner’s evidence not material because it did not rebut the agency’s underlying adverse credibility determination
Duka v. Holder
concluding that review is limited to the BIA’s denial of a motion where no petition was filed from the underlying decision denying asylum
Hossain v. Bondi
concluding that the Court was precluded from reaching underlying decision where petition was timely only as to denial of reopening
Rahman v. Bondi
concluding that the Court was precluded from reaching underlying decision where petition was timely only as to denial of reopening
Caguana-Paucar v. Bondi
holding that BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when a grant of relief would still be precluded due to a prior adverse credibility determination
Iqbal v. Holder
holding that the BIA does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reopen where the evidence submitted relates to the same claim the agency found not credible in the underlying proceeding
Xin Zhang v. Mukasey
concluding that BIA does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reopen where evidence submitted with that motion relates to same claim the agency found not credible in the underlying proceeding
Shou Yun Chen v. Mukasey
concluding that review is 21 limited to BIA’s denial of a motion where petition is filed only from the denial of 2 1 the motion, and not from the underlying decision denying asylum
Shantnu v. Bondi
concluding that our review is limited to the 15 decision that is the subject of the petition for review and that we are “precluded 16 from passing on the merits of the underlying . . . proceedings”
Magassouba v. Bondi
noting that we are precluded from reviewing 6 underlying removal order on petition for review of denial 7 of motion to reopen
Faruk v. Sessions
noting that we 15 are precluded from reviewing the underlying merits of an 16 asylum claim on a motion to reopen
Rivera-Lopez v. Garland
finding that evidence submitted with a motion to reopen did not overcome the IJ’s prior adverse credibility finding
Fu Le Wu v. Holder