Chhetri v. Mukasey , 258 F. App'x 594 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1358
BIJAY KUMAR CHHETRI,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-1749
BIJAY KUMAR CHHETRI,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A93-474-750)
Submitted: November 30, 2007 Decided: December 18, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, CHHETRY & ASSOCIATES, P.C., New York, New
York, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Mona Maria
Yousif, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, Bijay Kumar Chhetri, a
native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from
the immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum,
withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”) and denying his motion for reconsideration
and to reopen. We deny the petitions for review.
Insofar as Chhetri petitions for review of the Board’s
order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision
and that part of the subsequent order denying his motion for
reconsideration, we deny the petition for review because Chhetri
did not challenge either decision in the argument section of his
brief. “It is a well settled rule that contentions not raised in
the argument section of the opening brief are abandoned.” United
States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004). This
rule applies in the immigration context as well. See Yousefi v.
INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir. 2001) (issues not raised in the
opening brief are abandoned).
We further find the Board did not abuse its discretion in
denying the motion to reopen based on his marriage to a United
States citizen or because of changed conditions in Nepal. This
court reviews the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of
discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2007); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S.
- 3 -
314, 323-24 (1992); Nibagwire v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 153, 156 (4th
Cir. 2006). A denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with
extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not contemplate
reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor motions to
reopen. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc).
In explaining the degree of deference given to the agency’s
discretionary review, we have observed that the decision to deny a
motion to reopen “need only be reasoned, not convincing.” Id. at
310 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We will
reverse a denial of a motion to reopen only if the denial is
“arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” Barry v. Gonzales,
445 F.3d 741, 745 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1147 (2007).
A properly filed motion to reopen for adjustment of
status based on marriage entered into after the commencement of
proceedings may be granted in the exercise of discretion if clear
and convincing evidence presented indicates a strong likelihood
that the marriage is bona fide. In re Velarde-Pacheco, 23 I. & N.
Dec. 253, 256 (B.I.A. 2002). The relevant immigration regulations
set forth the types of documents that a petitioner should submit in
order to establish that his or her “marriage was entered into in
good faith and not entered into for the purpose of procuring the
alien’s entry as an immigrant.” 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(1)(iii)(B)
(2007). The types of documents the petitioner may submit include,
- 4 -
but are not limited to: (1) Documentation showing joint ownership
of property; (2) Lease showing joint tenancy of a common residence;
(3) Documentation showing commingling of financial resources;
(4) Birth certificate(s) of child(ren) born to the petitioner and
beneficiary; (5) Affidavits of third parties having knowledge of
the bona fides of the marital relationship; or (6) Any other
documentation that is relevant to establish the marriage was not
entered into in order to evade immigration laws. Id. We note
Chhetri did not provide any of the suggested documentation.
We further find Chhetri failed to show changed country
conditions in Nepal made him eligible for relief under the CAT.
Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITIONS DENIED
- 5 -