Tibltse Tewolde v. Michael Mukasey

Filing 920080917

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1289 TIBLTSE TEWOLDE, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. 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); We deny the 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 Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d must be reviewed with extreme deference. 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) We have recognized (internal quotations and citation omitted). 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." (4th Cir. 1998). Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234 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). finding In addition, the Board did not abuse its discretion in 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?