Rudolph Thomas v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-60926 Affirmed] Judge: WED , Judge: JES , Judge: LHS. Mandate pull date is 11/12/2010 [09-60926]

Rudolph Thomas v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Doc. 0

Case: 09-60926

Document: 00511238864

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/20/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-60926 S u m m a r y Calendar September 20, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

R U D O L P H THOMAS, P e titio n e r v. E R I C H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, R espon dent

P e tit io n for Review of an Order of the B o a r d of Immigration Appeals B I A No. A078 922 827

B e fo r e DAVIS, SMITH and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* R u d o lp h Thomas, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions this court for r e v ie w of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) order denying his motion to r e o p e n his in abstentia removal proceedings. Thomas does not challenge the B I A 's determination that his motion to reopen was untimely but maintains that t h e time limitation should not apply because his motion to reopen was based u p o n changed country conditions in Jamaica.

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-60926

Document: 00511238864 Page: 2 No. 09-60926

Date Filed: 09/20/2010

A n alien is not bound by the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen if his request for asylum or withholding of removal "is based on changed country c o n d itio n s arising in the country of nationality . . . if such evidence is material a n d was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the p r e v io u s proceeding." 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). The evidence submitted by Thomas, however, did not show a change in c o n d itio n s in Jamaica since the time of his in abstentia removal proceedings. Rather, Thomas's evidence showed that the political corruption and gang v io le n c e Thomas complained about in his motion to reopen had been occurring in Jamaica since the 1960s. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Thomas failed to e s t a b lis h changed country conditions and that his motion to reopen was, t h e r e fo r e , untimely. See Panjwani v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 626, 632-33 (5th Cir. 2 0 0 5 ). Accordingly, we decline to address Thomas's underlying claims that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal. See § 1003.2(a); Ogbemudia v . I.N.S., 988 F.2d 595, 599-600 (5th Cir. 1993). A c c o r d in g ly , Thomas's petition for review is DENIED.

2