Catherine Angele Dankam v. Loretta E. Lynch
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A096-092-718. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency . [16-1085]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
CATHERINE ANGELE DANKAM,
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
September 14, 2016
September 30, 2016
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Litigation Counsel, Maarja T. Luhtaru, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Catherine Angele Dankam, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen.
For the reasons
set forth below, we deny the petition for review.
An alien may file one motion to reopen within 90 days of the
entry of a final order of removal.
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A),
(C) (2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2016).
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.”
We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2016); INS v. Doherty, 502
U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400
(4th Cir. 2009).
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
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 hearing to be held if the
Pg: 3 of 3
motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits or other
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
It “shall not
be granted unless it appears to the Board that evidence sought
to be offered is material and was not available and could not
have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.”
Here, the Board correctly found that Dankam’s motion was
untimely because it was not filed within 90 days of the final
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
Dankam failed to establish changed country conditions excusing a
late or numerically barred motion to reopen.
We have considered
Dankam’s remaining arguments, including her due process claim,
and conclude that they are without merit.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?