Mohammed Jewel v. Loretta E. Lynch
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Mohammad Jewel, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on changed country conditions. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and we deny the petition.
Jewel first argues that the BIA did not give adequate weight to his declarations, which were not sworn or otherwise made under penalty of perjury. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by giving Jewel’s declarations “minimal evidentiary weight” because the BIA was not required to give any weight to unsworn declarations. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B) (“The motion to reopen ... shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.”); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(1) (same); United States v. Vargas-Amaya, 389 F.3d 901, 905 (9th Cir. 2004) (“ [Affidavits ... are signed under oath....”) (citing Affidavit, Black’s Laiv Dictionary (7th ed. 1999) (defining “affidavit” as a “sworn” declaration of facts)); see also INS v. Jong Ha Wang, 450 U.S. 139, 142-43 , 101 S.Ct. 1027 , 67 L.Ed.2d 123 (1981) (error to require a hearing on a motion to reopen where “[n]one of the allegations was sworn”).