Tewolde v. Mukasey

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1289
TIBLTSE TEWOLDE,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: August 25, 2008 Decided: September 17, 2008
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Goren, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID GOREN, Silver Spring, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Assistant Attorney General,
James E. Grimes, Senior Litigation Counsel, William C. Minick,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tibltse Tewolde, a native and citizen of Eritrea,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reopen. We deny the
petition for review.
This court reviews the Board’s denial of a motion to
reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2008);
INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 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. Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d
587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999). 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 quotations and citation omitted). We have recognized
three independent grounds for denial of a motion to reopen removal
proceedings: “(1) the alien has not established a prima facie case
for the underlying substantive relief sought; (2) the alien has not
introduced previously unavailable, material evidence; and (3) where
relief is discretionary, the alien would not be entitled to the
discretionary grant of relief.” Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234
(4th Cir. 1998). In explaining the degree of deference given to
the agency’s discretionary review, this court has observed that the
decision to deny a motion to reopen “need only be reasoned, not
2
convincing.” M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 310 (4th Cir. 1990) (en
banc) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
The Board correctly denied the motion as untimely. See
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)
(2008). In addition, the Board did not abuse its discretion in
finding Tewolde failed to show changed country conditions
warranting reopening.
Accordingly, we deny the petition 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.
PETITION DENIED
3