Indra Gurung v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A088-347-923. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999028564]. [12-1776]
Appeal: 12-1776
Doc: 20
Filed: 01/24/2013
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1776
INDRA GURUNG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted:
December 27, 2012
Decided:
January 24, 2013
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Terri J.
Scadron,
Assistant
Director,
Anthony
W.
Norwood,
Senior
Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-1776
Doc: 20
Filed: 01/24/2013
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Indra Gurung, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying
her motion to reopen. *
country
removal.
conditions
Gurung claims she established changed
that
make
her
eligible
for
relief
from
We deny the petition for review.
Gurung
had
thirty
days
from
the
date
of
the
order from which to file a timely petition for review.
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2006).
final
See 8
Because the petition was filed June
20, 2012, it is only timely filed as to the May 24, 2012 order
denying
reopening.
“jurisdictional
in
The
nature
and
fidelity to [its] terms.”
(1995).
this
thirty
must
day
be
time
construed
period
with
does
not
have
strict
Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405
It is “not subject to equitable tolling.”
Court
is
jurisdiction
to
review
Id.
the
Thus,
Board’s
February 23, 2012 order finding no clear error with the adverse
credibility
finding
and
dismissing
Gurung’s
appeal
from
the
immigration judge’s order.
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);
*
The Board also construed Gurung’s motion as a motion for
reconsideration and denied it as untimely.
Gurung does not
challenge that finding.
2
Appeal: 12-1776
Doc: 20
Filed: 01/24/2013
Pg: 3 of 4
see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2012).
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).
To establish changed country conditions, the applicant
must present evidence that “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).
Furthermore, “[a] motion to reopen
proceedings shall state the new facts that will be proven at a
hearing
to
supported
C.F.R.
be
§
by
held
if
the
motion
affidavits
or
other
1003.2(c)(1).
In
unavailable
evidence,
previously
is
granted
evidentiary
addition
an
to
and
shall
material.”
identifying
applicant
seeking
be
8
the
to
establish changed country conditions must demonstrate her prima
facie eligibility for asylum, that is, she must demonstrate that
the new evidence would likely alter the result of his case.
See
INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988); Onyeme v. INS, 146
F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir. 1998).
We
conclude
that
the
Board
discretion denying the motion to reopen.
did
not
abuse
its
Gurung’s new evidence
in support of her claim that country conditions had changed did
3
Appeal: 12-1776
not
Doc: 20
address
the
Filed: 01/24/2013
adverse
Pg: 4 of 4
credibility
finding.
Thus,
even
if
country conditions had changed, Gurung failed to address the
finding that her claim that she was targeted by Maoists was not
credible.
Accordingly,
dispense
with
oral
we
deny
argument
the
petition
because
the
for
facts
review.
and
We
legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
4
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?