Case: 17-60725 Document: 00514896024 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-60725 FILED April 1, 2019 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk HAMIS ATHOMAN CHANDE, Petitioner v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A099 613 182 Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Hamis Athoman Chande, a native and citizen of Tanzania, petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his motion to reopen for lack of jurisdiction and declining to reopen his removal proceedings. He also moves for the appointment of counsel. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 17-60725 Document: 00514896024 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/01/2019 No. 17-60725 We review the BIA’s decision and will consider the underlying decision of the IJ to the extent it influenced the BIA’s determination. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Factual findings are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard, and legal questions are reviewed de novo, with deference accorded to the BIA’s reasonable interpretations of immigration statutes and regulations. Rui Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 584-85 (5th Cir. 2011). The denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed under “a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Mendias-Mendoza v. Sessions, 877 F.3d 223, 226 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Chande has failed to show that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s denial of his motion to reopen for lack of jurisdiction. See Rui Yang, 664 F.3d at 584- 85. The administrative record reflects that in 2007, the BIA dismissed Chande’s appeal of the IJ’s denial of his first motion to reopen and adjudicated the motion to reopen filed before the BIA. Accordingly, jurisdiction over any subsequently filed motions to reopen was vested with the BIA. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1); In re C-W-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 346, 350-51 (BIA 2007); In re Aviles, 15 I. & N. Dec. 588, 588 (BIA 1976). Assuming that it had jurisdiction, the BIA declined to reopen Chande’s removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) because Chande had failed to establish that there were materially changed conditions in Tanzania warranting the reopening of his removal proceedings for a hearing. Chande has not shown that the BIA’s decision was an abuse of discretion. See Mendias-Mendoza, 877 F.3d at 226-27. Even if Chande’s sworn allegations were sufficient to make a prima facie showing that a deportation officer disclosed information in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 208.6 and that the Tanzanian government knew he was a failed asylum seeker, Chande did not present any evidence that the Tanzanian ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals