Abdalla Alsagladi v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

Filed Nonprecedential Disposition PER CURIAM. The Petition for Review is DENIED. Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge; Daniel A. Manion, Circuit Judge and Diane S. Sykes, Circuit Judge. [6525386-1] [6525386] [13-1649]

2
1

Case: 13-1649 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
Document: 20
Filed: 10/23/2013

Pages: 2

To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted October 18, 2013∗
Decided October 23, 2013

Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 13-1649
ABDALLA ALSAGLADI,
Petitioner,

Petition for Review of an
Order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals.

v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the
United States,
Respondent.

Order
Seven years ago, we denied Abdalla Alsagladi’s petition for review of an order
requiring his removal to his native Yemen. Alsagladi v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 700 (7th Cir.
2006). An Immigration Judge denied Alsagladi’s request for asylum after finding his
story not credible; the IJ added that asylum would be denied as a matter of discretion

∗

This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b); Judge
Sykes replaces Judge Coffey. After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral
argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

Case: 13-1649
No. 13-1649

Document: 20

Filed: 10/23/2013

Pages: 2
Page 2

(because Alsagladi entered this nation by fraud) even if he were eligible for relief. The
Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed on the latter ground, and we held that its
decision is supported by substantial evidence and not based on a legal error.
Alsagladi then moved to reopen, asserting that country conditions in Yemen had
deteriorated. The BIA denied this motion, and Alsagladi did not seek judicial review. In
2012 he filed another motion to reopen, which the Board denied as untimely (the statute
allows only 90 days) and barred by the motion filed in 2007 (the statute allows only one
motion to reopen). The Board recognized that an otherwise-barred motion could be
justified by changed country conditions but observed that Alsagladi had not seriously
attempted to show that Yemen was more risky for him in 2012 than it would have been
in 2007, when he filed the first motion. Moreover, the Board noted, Alsagladi had not
even tried to address the discretionary ruling that he would not receive asylum even if
eligible for it.
The petition for review that Alsagladi has filed in this court exhibits the same
shortcomings as his motion to the Board. It does not explain what significant new
information was presented in 2012 that was not available (or actually presented) in
2007. And it scarcely mentions the ground on which he lost before the Board, and this
court, in 2005 and 2006: that his fraudulent entry disqualified him from a favorable
exercise of discretion. That ground is as firm today as it was when we issued our
original opinion. Alsagladi’s position is weaker now than in 2006, given that the current
application is years late and exceeds the single motion to reopen that the law allows.
The petition for review is denied.