Mullar v. Sessions
This text of Mullar v. Sessions (Mullar v. Sessions) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
16-3426 Mullar v. Sessions BIA A087 445 586/587/588 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 TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 8th day of January, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SATPAL SINGH MULLAR, JASPAL KAUR 14 MULLAR, SUKHKIRANDEEP SINGH 15 MULLAR, 16 Petitioners, 17 18 v. 16-3426 19 NAC 20 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, 21 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONERS: Genet Getachew, Brooklyn, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Anthony W. 29 Norwood, Senior Litigation 30 Counsel; Colin J. Tucker, Trial 31 Attorney, Office of Immigration 32 33 1 Litigation, United States 2 Department of Justice, Washington, 3 DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 Petitioners Satpal Singh Mullar (“Mullar”), Jaspal Kaur
10 Mullar, and Sukhkirandeep Singh Mullar, natives and citizens
11 of India, seek review of a September 19, 2016, decision of
12 the BIA denying their motion to reopen. In re Satpal Singh
13 Mullar, Jaspal Kaur Mullar, Sukhkirandeep Singh Mullar, Nos.
14 A 087 445 586/587/588 (B.I.A. Sept. 19, 2016). We assume the
15 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural
16 history in this case.
17 We review the BIA’s decision for abuse of discretion.
18 Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). “An
19 abuse of discretion may be found in those circumstances
20 where the Board’s decision provides no rational
21 explanation, inexplicably departs from established
22 policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only
23 summary or conclusory statements.” Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d
24 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2 1 We review the BIA’s factual findings about country
2 conditions for substantial evidence. Jian Hui Shao v.
3 Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008).
4 It is undisputed that Mullar’s motion to reopen, filed
5 almost three years after the final administrative decision
6 was rendered, was untimely. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i)
7 (setting 90-day deadline for reopening); 8 C.F.R. §
8 1003.2(c)(2) (same). This time limitation may be excused if
9 the motion is filed to apply for asylum “based on changed
10 country conditions arising in the country of nationality or
11 the country to which removal has been ordered, if such
12 evidence is material and was not available and would not have
13 been discovered or presented at the previous proceedings.”
14 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. §
15 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Mullar presses changed conditions for
16 Sikhs since his 2011 merits hearing. 8 U.S.C.
17 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253
18 (B.I.A. 2007) (the agency “compare[s] the evidence of country
19 conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at
20 the time of the merits hearing below”).
21 The BIA was within its discretion to find that Mullar’s
22 new evidence did not excuse his untimely motion to reopen.
3 1 The BIA cited evidence from the 2011 merits hearing that
2 showed both Indian security forces killing demonstrators at
3 protests and Sikhs disproportionately suffering from state
4 violence. Consequently, Mullar’s new evidence--about
5 violent Sikh protests--did not reflect a material change in
6 conditions.
7 Mullar attempts to distinguish the two sets of evidence:
8 the 2011 record described a deadly confrontation that did not
9 involve Sikhs. But the BIA had the discretion to find that
10 the two sets of evidence are of a piece: the Indian government
11 does not tolerate protest, irrespective of who is protesting.
12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
13 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
14 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
15 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
16 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
17 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
18 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
19 34.1(b).
20 FOR THE COURT: 21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Mullar v. Sessions, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullar-v-sessions-ca2-2018.