Volodymyr Pavlyk, et al v. Michael Mukasey, No. 08-1705 (7th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 To be cited only in accordance with of Appeals United States Court Fed. R. App. P. 32.1Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53 For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted May 29, 2008 Decided May 30, 2008 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK , Chief Judge RICHARD D. C UDAHY, Circuit Judge DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge No. 08-1705 VOLODYMYR PAVLYK , also known as NIKOLAI NARYJKIN, NATALIA PAVLYK and IRYNA PAVLYK , also known as LUBA SAVCHUK , Petitioners, v. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Nos. A95-924-674 MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. Order We denied Volodymyr Pavlyk s petition for review of an order that he (and his family) must be removed from the United States to Ukraine. 469 F.3d 1082 (7th Cir. This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). 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). No. 08-1705 Page 2 2006). The Pavlyks asked the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen and, when the Board denied that request, asked it to reconsider. That motion, too, was denied, and we denied additional petitions for review. Nos. 07-2750, 07-3583 (7th Cir. Apr. 29, 2008) (nonprecedential order). The Pavlyks filed with the Board yet another motion to reopen, and this was denied as untimely and in excess of the number of motions allowed by law. Another petition for review has been filed concerning that decision. As we remarked in April, the Pavlyks have contended since the outset of these proceedings that they are at risk of persecution should they be returned to Ukraine. That contention has been rejected repeatedly. Reopening is possible if country conditions change, but the evidence that the Pavlyks have presented in their multiple motions to reopen does not demonstrate any change in country conditions. The Board did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the latest motion is untimely and foreclosed for the further reason that an alien is entitled to file one motion to reopen, but not a second. 8 U.S.C. ยง1229a(c)(7)(A). The petition for review is denied.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
