Harvinderjit Sahi v. Loretta Lynch
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A200-841-112 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999964495]. Mailed to: Harvinderjit Singh Sahi. [16-1545]
Appeal: 16-1545
Doc: 11
Filed: 11/08/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1545
HARVINDERJIT SINGH SAHI,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted:
October 25, 2016
Decided:
November 8, 2016
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harvinderjit Singh Sahi, Petitioner Pro Se. Sheri Robyn Glaser,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-1545
Doc: 11
Filed: 11/08/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Harvinderjit Singh Sahi, a native and citizen of India,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen. For the reasons set
forth below, we deny the petition for review.
An alien may file one motion to reopen within 90 days of the
entry of a final order of removal.
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)
(2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2016).
This time limit does not
apply if the basis for the motion is to seek asylum or withholding
of removal based on changed country conditions, “if such evidence
is
material
and
was
not
available
and
would
not
have
been
discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); accord 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of
discretion.
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2016); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S.
314, 323-24 (1992); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir.
2009).
The Board’s “denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed with
extreme deference, given that motions to reopen are disfavored
because every delay works to the advantage of the deportable alien
who wishes merely to remain in the United States.”
Sadhvani v.
Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
The motion “shall state the new facts that will be
proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall
be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.”
2
8
Appeal: 16-1545
Doc: 11
Filed: 11/08/2016
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
Pg: 3 of 3
It “shall not be granted unless it appears
to the Board that evidence sought to be offered is material and
was not available and could not have been discovered or presented
at the former hearing.”
Here,
the
Board
Id.
correctly
found
that
Sahi’s
motion
was
untimely because it was not filed within 90 days of the final
administrative decision.
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
We further
conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that Sahi
failed to establish changed country conditions excusing a late
motion to reopen.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this
court
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?