Khalid Baagmil v. Eric Holder, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1109
KHALID OMER OBEID BAAGMIL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 24, 2013 Decided: July 9, 2013
Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tamar L. Jones, FAYAD LAW P.C., Falls Church, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Keith L. McManus, Senior Litigation Counsel, Timothy G.
Hayes, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Khalid Omer Obeid Baagmil, a native and citizen of
Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen. We
deny the petition for review.
An alien may file one motion to reopen within ninety
days of the entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2013).
The time limit does not apply if the basis for the motion is to
seek asylum based on changed country conditions, “if such
evidence is material and was not available and would not have
been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
This court reviews the denial of a motion to reopen
for abuse of discretion. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-
24 (1992); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009);
see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3) (2013). The “denial of a
motion to reopen is reviewed with extreme deference, given that
motions to reopen are disfavored because every delay works to
the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to
remain in the United States.” Sadhvani v. Holder, 596 F.3d 180,
182 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The
motion “shall state the new facts that will be proven at a
2
hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall be
supported by affidavits and other evidentiary material.” 8
C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3). Also, the motion shall not be granted
unless it appears to the immigration judge that the evidence
“sought to be offered is material and was not available and
could not have been discovered or presented at the former
hearing.” Id.We conclude that the Board did not abuse its
discretion in finding that Baagmil did not show a change in
country conditions that would excuse the ninety day period for
filing a motion to reopen. Because Baagmil did not show a
change in country conditions in Ethiopia, the Board did not need
to consider whether he was prima facie eligible for asylum or
related relief. We further conclude that the Board did not
abuse its discretion in denying reopening based on Baagmil’s
claim that he wanted to apply for adjustment of status.
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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3