Elame v. Holder ( 2009 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 28, 2009
No. 08-60813
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
MOUKOKO THOMAS CHRISTIAN ELAME, also known as Thomas Christian
Elame Moukoko
Petitioner
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U S ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A78 126 567
Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Moukoko Thomas Christian Elame petitions this court for review of the
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen.
Elame argues that the BIA erred by denying his motion to reopen because he is
eligible to adjust his status as the spouse of a United States citizen. The
decision to reopen proceedings is a discretionary decision, and this court applies
a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard when reviewing the BIA’s
*
Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 08-60813
denial of a motion to reopen. Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir.
2000). This court will affirm the BIA’s decision as long as it is not “capricious,
racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so
irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational
approach.” Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir. 2006) (citation
omitted).
Elame has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the
motion to reopen because he has not shown that he meets the five factors set
forth in In re Velarde-Pacheco, 23 I. & N. Dec. 253, 256 (BIA 2002). Moreover,
Elame was only at the first step of the long and discretionary process of
obtaining an adjustment of status. See Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 438-39
(5th Cir. 2006). Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Elame’s
motion to reopen. The petition for review is DENIED.
2