Tri Budiono v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A94-889-390. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998407936] [10-1225]

Tri Budiono v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Doc. 0

Case: 10-1225 Document: 29

Date Filed: 08/20/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1225 TRI EFENDY BUDIONO, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 11, 2010 Decided: August 20, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. H. Raymond Fasano, MADEO & FASANO, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Senior Litigation Counsel, Sheri R. Glaser, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-1225 Document: 29

Date Filed: 08/20/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Tri Efendy Budiono, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying his motion to reopen based on changed country conditions. 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) (2010). This time limit does not apply if the basis for the motion is to seek asylum or withholding of removal 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) (2006); 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. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24

(1992); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 137 (2009); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2010). The

Board's "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 2

Case: 10-1225 Document: 29

Date Filed: 08/20/2010

Page: 3

be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material." 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). appears material to the Board was not that It "shall not be granted unless it evidence sought to be not Id. offered have is

and

available

and

could

been

discovered or presented at the former hearing."

This court

will reverse a denial of a motion to reopen "only if it is `arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.'" Mosere, 552 F.3d

at 400 (quoting Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166, 174 (3d Cir. 2002)). We conclude the Board did not abuse its discretion. Budiono's evidence did not show a material change in country conditions, but only a continuation of some of the same conduct that he claimed supported a well-founded fear of persecution. In addition, the Board did not abuse its discretion in finding Budiono's evidence was cumulative. Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny the petition the for facts review. and We legal

argument

because

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3