Ndoci v. Barr

<p>19-1008 Ndoci v. Barr BIA A079 727 140 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 30th day of October, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GERARD E. LYNCH, 8 MICHAEL H. PARK, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ALBANA NDOCI, AKA XHILIOLA LALA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-1008 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Joshua Bardavid, Esq., New York, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 27 Assistant Attorney General; Linda 28 S. Wernery, Assistant Director; 29 Steven K. Uejio, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 31 United States Department of 32 Justice, Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Albana Ndoci, a native and citizen of Albania, 6 seeks review of a March 19, 2019, decision of the BIA denying 7 her motion to reopen. In re Albana Ndoci, No. A 079 727 140 8 (BIA Mar. 19, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with 9 the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. The 10 applicable standards of review are well established. See 11 Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008). 12 Ndoci moved to reopen her proceedings based on her fear 13 of future persecution and alleged a material change in country 14 conditions because the Socialist Party had regained control 15 of the Albanian government. It is undisputed that Ndoci’s 16 motion to reopen was time- and number-barred because it was 17 her second motion to reopen filed more than a decade after 18 she was ordered removed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), 19 (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). However, the time and 20 numerical limitations do not apply if the motion is to reopen 21 proceedings in order to apply for asylum “based on changed 22 country conditions arising in the country of nationality or 23 the country to which removal has been ordered, if such 2 1 evidence is material and was not ...</p><br>
<a href="/opinion/4801931/ndoci-v-barr/">Original document</a>
Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on Beware.org, it is strongly advised to avoid Ndoci v. Barr in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from Ndoci v. Barr. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike Beware.org, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
Ndoci v. Barr is rated 1 out of 5 based on the reviews submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased reviews.


>