NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 20-3004 _____________ OMOLO NYAGUTI OKEMBA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA- 1: A201-075-069) Immigration Judge: Annie S. Garcy _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 9, 2021 Before: HARDIMAN, MATEY, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges. (Filed: December 20, 2021) _______________ OPINION _______________ This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. MATEY, Circuit Judge. Omolo Okemba overstayed his visa. Removal proceedings followed, and he accepted voluntary departure. Changing his mind, he sought to reopen his case, but his motion was denied as untimely, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed his appeal. Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion, we will deny his petition for review. I. BACKGROUND Okemba, a native of Kenya, entered the United States in 2012. After overstaying his visa, he was placed into removal proceedings. During the process, he moved to New Jersey with his first wife, then to Pittsburgh after that marriage failed. While in Pittsburgh, he hired counsel to handle his removal case, explaining that he intended to re-marry when his divorce finalized. According to Okemba, counsel never asked questions that may have led to an asylum claim. A significant error, he maintains, as he fears returning to Kenya “because of his membership in a community self-help group called ‘Future Rarieda Youth Group.’” (A.R. at 19–20.) But Okemba’s counsel disputes that claim, and adds that Okemba was “unresponsive to multiple requests for information over a long period of time.” (A.R. at 90.) Okemba sought, and received, several continuances to finalize his divorce and remarry, at which time his new spouse would file an I-130. Following months without progress, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) decided that Okemba had to choose between voluntary departure and a removal order. After consulting counsel, Okemba chose 2 voluntary departure. On August 29, 2019, the IJ ordered that Okemba be granted voluntary departure. Okemba then hired a new attorney, moved to reopen his case, and applied for asylum. But he did not file his motion until December 11, 2019—two weeks after the motion’s ninety-day statutory filing deadline had expired—despite retaining new counsel four weeks earlier, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). The IJ denied the motion, finding that Okemba had not established an exception to the timeliness requirement, and the BIA dismissed on that basis. This timely petition followed.1 II. DISCUSSION We review the denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings for abuse of discretion. Alzaarir v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 639 F.3d 86, 89 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam); Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166, 170–71 (3d Cir. 2002). Findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, Sevoian, 290 F.3d at 171, an “extraordinarily deferential” standard, Romero v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 972 F.3d 334, 342 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting Garcia v. Att’y Gen. of …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals