NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted March 13, 2019* Decided March 13, 2019 Before MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge Nos. 16‐3676 & 17‐1842 ADEOYE O. ADEBOWALE, Petitions for Review of Orders from the Petitioner, Board of Immigration Appeals. v. No. A098‐814‐677 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. O R D E R In Adebowale v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 2008), we dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Adeoye Adebowale’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying his motion to reopen his asylum case. Adebowale now appeals two subsequent BIA orders denying two further motions to reopen the case. We consolidated the appeals for purposes of disposition. Because Adebowale has not * We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). Nos. 16‐3676 & 17‐1842 Page 2 shown changed country conditions to excuse his untimely motions, we affirm in part and dismiss in part. Adebowale, a Nigerian‐born citizen of the United Kingdom, traveled to the United States in December 2004 under the Visa Waiver Pilot Program, see 8 C.F.R. § 217.2, and overstayed. The following year, he applied for asylum, stating that he faced persecution in the United Kingdom because of his work as a human rights attorney. But Adebowale missed his asylum hearing, so an Immigration Judge dismissed the case and entered an in absentia order of removal; the BIA upheld that decision. Because his appeal raised only unreviewable questions of fact, we dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Adebowale, 546 F.3d at 895. Adebowale remained in the United States and, in June 2016, moved to reopen his asylum case based on changed country conditions that, he said, led him to fear for his safety if he returned to the United Kingdom. Because the 180‐day deadline for filing a motion to reopen an in absentia order had long since passed, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), he sought to satisfy one of the exceptions to the time limit by raising a claim for asylum based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). In a sprawling motion, he cited various incidents involving American and British police that, he asserted, reflected some unspecified form of collusion against him. The BIA, however, found “no objective evidence” of any material change in Britain, and dismissed the motion as untimely, explaining that any motion to reopen was due within 180 days after the immigration judge entered the September 2006 in absentia order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i). Two months later, Adebowale filed a similar motion seeking reconsideration of the BIA’s denial of his June 2016 motion, and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals