Nelson K. Luswata v. John Ashcroft , 97 F. App'x 62 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 03-2599
    ___________
    Nelson Kikubira Luswata,              *
    *
    Petitioner,               *
    * Petition for Review of an
    v.                              * Order of the Board of
    * Immigration Appeals.
    John Ashcroft, Attorney General of    *
    the United States of America,         *    [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Respondent.               *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 7, 2004
    Filed: May 13, 2004
    ___________
    Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Nelson Luswata, a native and citizen of Uganda, petitions for review of an
    order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen
    removal proceedings. Luswata argues the BIA erred in not following its established
    standard of review in deciding his motion to reopen, not considering his newly
    acquired evidence that was unavailable when he appeared before the immigration
    judge, and not issuing a written decision revealing the rationale for its decision to
    deny his motion.
    After careful consideration, we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its
    discretion in denying the motion, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (BIA has discretion to
    reopen), because Luswata had not shown that the new evidence “was not available
    and could not have been discovered or presented at the [removal] hearing,” 8 C.F.R.
    § 1003.2(c)(1). See INS v. Abudu, 
    485 U.S. 94
    , 107-08 (1988) (motions to reopen
    deportation proceedings are disfavored because of strong public interest in bringing
    litigation to close); Raffington v. INS, 
    340 F.3d 720
    , 721, 724 (8th Cir. 2003)
    (standard of review; court reviewing denial of motion to reopen does not have
    jurisdiction to review underlying order). To the extent Luswata asserts a due process
    challenge to the BIA’s streamlined-review procedure, the argument is unavailing. Cf.
    Loulou v. Ashcroft, 
    354 F.3d 706
    , 708-09 (8th Cir. 2003) (concluding affirmance
    without opinion of immigration judge’s decision does not violate alien’s due process
    rights).
    Accordingly, we deny the petition.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-2599

Citation Numbers: 97 F. App'x 62

Judges: Bye, McMillian, Per Curiam, Riley

Filed Date: 5/13/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024