Case: 19-14026 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-14026 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A088-488-386 HOPE KAREKEZI, ANDY MATHE, SHAMMAH AIMEE KAREKEZI, THULANI NKOSANA MATHE, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (April 16, 2020) Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 19-14026 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 Page: 2 of 10 Hope Karekezi,1 a native and citizen of South Africa, seeks our review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her third motion to reopen her removal proceedings. Karekezi argues that the BIA abused its discretion when it refused to reopen the proceedings based on (1) its sua sponte authority or (2) on the changed country conditions and new material facts not previously available. She further argues that she was deprived of procedural due process as “[t]he failure to receive relief, in this case, amounts to a deprivation of a liberty interest.” Because we lack jurisdiction over part of her petition and the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen, we dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part. I. Background Karekezi and her three children entered the United States from South Africa in July 2007. Upon arrival at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia, she told authorities that she came to the United States to apply for asylum. In August 2007, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) served her with a notice to appear that charged her with inadmissibility to the United States as: (1) an alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, sought to procure a visa or admission into the United States, in violation of 8 1 Although Karekezi’s three children, Andy Mathe, Shammah Karekezi, and Thulani Mathe, are also named as petitioners in this case, they sought relief strictly as derivatives of the asylum application underlying Karekezi’s third motion to reopen. 2 Case: 19-14026 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 Page: 3 of 10 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i); and (2) an alien who at the time of application for admission, was not in possession of a valid, unexpired entry document, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(1). She ultimately admitted the truth of the allegations and sought asylum and withholding of removal based on fear that she and her family were in danger if returned to South Africa. Specifically, she asserted that she had received threats from what she believed were “Tutsi[] agents” related to her husband who is a Hutu from Rwanda and had refugee status in South Africa. The immigration judge found Karekezi inadmissible as charged, denied her application for asylum and withholding of removal, and ordered her removed to South Africa. The BIA affirmed that decision. We subsequently denied her petition for review of the BIA’s decision. See Karekezi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 380 F. App’x 815 (11th Cir. 2010). Nevertheless, the removal ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals