NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 20a0558n.06 No. 20-3153 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED MOUSSA SOW BOLO, aka Bolo Moussa ) Sep 29, 2020 Sow, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioner, ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW ) FROM THE BOARD OF v. ) IMMIGRATION APPEALS ) WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, ) ) Respondent. ) BEFORE: BATCHELDER, GRIFFIN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Moussa Sow Bolo, also known as Bolo Moussa Sow, petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. As set forth below, we DENY in part and DISMISS in part Sow’s petition for review. Sow, a native and citizen of Mauritania, entered the United States in 2000. Sow subsequently filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Immigration and Naturalization Service served Sow with a notice to appear in removal proceedings, initially charging her with removability as an alien who was not in possession of a valid entry or travel document at the time of entry. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A). The government later amended the charge to allege that Sow was an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled after inspection. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Appearing before an immigration judge (IJ), Sow conceded that she was No. 20-3153, Sow Bolo v. Barr subject to removal but denied that she entered without inspection. Sow filed an updated application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, asserting that the police arrested, beat, and threatened her on account of her support for a widows’ group advocating for equal rights for the black population in Mauritania. After a hearing, the IJ denied Sow’s applications for relief. The IJ sustained the amended charge, finding that Sow entered the United States without inspection. The IJ went on to find that Sow was not credible and that, even if believed, she had failed to satisfy her burdens of proof. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion on March 21, 2003. Sixteen years later, on September 16, 2019, Sow filed a motion with the BIA to reopen her removal proceedings. In support of her motion to reopen, Sow asserted that her attorney, Patrick Salley, provided ineffective assistance during her removal proceedings by failing to seek relief based on her past persecution as a victim of female genital mutilation (FGM) in Mauritania. Sow also sought reopening to apply for adjustment of status based on an approved relative-visa petition filed by her United States citizen husband. Recognizing that her motion to reopen was filed after the 90-day deadline, Sow argued that her attorney’s ineffective assistance constituted an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling or, in the alternative, that the BIA should exercise its discretion to reopen her case sua sponte. The BIA denied Sow’s motion to reopen. The BIA determined that Sow was not entitled to equitable tolling of the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals