UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1787 ABALO MAWAKI ALITI, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 20, 2020 Decided: February 28, 2020 Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel G. Anna, ANNA & ANNA, P.C., Media, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Nehal H. Kamani, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Abalo Mawaki Aliti, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying his motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review in part and dismiss it in part. 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) (2018); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2019). 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 the alien’s evidence of the same “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) (2019). We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2019); 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 alien who wishes merely to remain in the United States.” 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 motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (2019). 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. 2 There is no dispute that Aliti’s motion to reopen was untimely because it was not filed within 90 days of the final administrative decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). We have reviewed Aliti’s arguments on appeal, in conjunction with the administrative record, and conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Aliti failed to establish a material change in country conditions so to excuse the late-filed motion to reopen. See Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008) (providing for substantial evidence review of the Board’s factual findings related ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals