Catherine Angele Dankam v. Loretta E. Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A096-092-718. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999938645]. [16-1085]

Appeal: 16-1085

Doc: 25

Filed: 09/30/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1085

CATHERINE ANGELE DANKAM,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

September 14, 2016

Decided:

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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Eric
W.
Marsteller,
Senior
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1085

Doc: 25

Filed: 09/30/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
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.”
8

U.S.C.

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii);

accord

8

C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of
discretion.

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
deportable
States.”

alien

who

wishes

merely

to

remain

in

the

United

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
2

Appeal: 16-1085

Doc: 25

Filed: 09/30/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits or other
evidentiary material.”

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.”

Id.

Here, the Board correctly found that Dankam’s motion was
untimely because it was not filed within 90 days of the final
administrative decision.
conclude

that

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

substantial

evidence

supports

the

We further
finding

that

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.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

3