holding 5 that the BIA properly denied the petitioner’s motion to reopen 6 where its order “clearly explained that the evidence 7 submitted by petitioner in support of her motion was not 8 ‘material’ because it did not rebut the adverse credibility 9 finding that provided the basis for the IJ’s denial of 10 petitioner’s underlying asylum application”
How later courts described this case
- holding 5 that the BIA properly denied the petitioner’s motion to reopen 6 where its order “clearly explained that the evidence 7 submitted by petitioner in support of her motion was not 8 ‘material’ because it did not rebut the adverse credibility 9 finding that provided the basis for the IJ’s denial of 10 petitioner’s underlying asylum application”
- finding BIA did 14 not abuse discretion in holding “evidence submitted by petitioner in support of 15 her motion was not material because it did not rebut the adverse credibility finding 16 that provided the basis for the IJ’s denial of petitioner’s underlying asylum 17 application.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- finding that the BIA does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reopen where “the evidence submitted by petitioner in support of her motion was not ‘material’ because it did not rebut the adverse credibility finding that provided the basis for the IJ’s denial of petitioner’s underlying asylum application”
- concluding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion where it “clearly explained that the evidence submitted by petitioner in support of her motion was not ‘material’ because it did not rebut the adverse credibility finding that provided the basis for the IJ’s denial of petitioner’s underlying asylum application”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
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.