Jeremy Nyuwa v. Loretta E. Lynch

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEREMY AMIN NYUWA, Nos. 13-74265
14-70333
Petitioner, 14-71231
v. Agency No. A078-231-145
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jeremy Amin Nyuwa, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying his fifth
motion to reopen (No. 13-74265), his subsequent motion to reconsider and sixth
motion to reopen (No. 14-70333), and his subsequent motion to reconsider (No.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
14-71231). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the BIA’s denial of motions to reopen and reconsider, Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petitions for review.
As to petition No. 13-74265, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in its
November 21, 2013, order denying Nyuwa’s fifth motion to reopen as untimely
and number-barred where it was filed over seven years after the BIA’s final
decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Nyuwa failed to establish an exception
to the time and number limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (BIA’s denial
of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational,
or contrary to law”). We reject Nyuwa’s contention that the BIA erred by not
considering his evidence.
As to petition No. 14-70333, the BIA acted within its discretion in denying
Nyuwa’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of
fact or law in the BIA’s November 21, 2013, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b).
Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Nyuwa’s sixth motion to
reopen as untimely and number-barred because Nyuwa failed to establish that he
qualified for an exception to the time and numerical limits for filing a motion to
2 13-74265
reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d
988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining the BIA can deny a motion to reopen based on
changed country conditions for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for the
relief sought).
Finally, as to petition No. 14-71231, the BIA also acted within its discretion
in denying Nyuwa’s motion to reconsider its January 22, 2014, order because
Nyuwa failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s conclusion that he
failed to establish a prima facie case for the relief he sought. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(b).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-74265