Case: 17-60070 Document: 00514571130 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/25/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-60070 FILED Summary Calendar July 25, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JEAN CLAUDE MUVUNYI, Petitioner v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petitions for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A205 456 018 Before REAVLEY, GRAVES, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jean Claude Muvunyi, a native and citizen of Rwanda, petitions for review of the decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his second motion to reopen his immigration proceedings and denying his motion to reconsider the denial of the motion to reopen. The Government moves for summary disposition. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-60070 Document: 00514571130 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/25/2018 No. 17-60070 During his immigration proceedings, Muvunyi sought as relief asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, testifying that he had been tortured and imprisoned and faced future torture and imprisonment due to his ties to former Rwandan military officer Kayumba Nyamwasa. The immigration judge denied Muvunyi relief, determining that he lacked credibility. The BIA dismissed Muvunyi’s appeal, and Muvunyi did not petition for review. The BIA also denied Muvunyi’s first motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. Additionally, the BIA denied Muvunyi’s second motion to reopen as time- and number-barred and for failure to demonstrate changed country conditions. The BIA then denied Muvunyi’s motion to reconsider the denial of his second motion to reopen. We review the denial of a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005). We will affirm the BIA’s decision to deny either type of motion if it is not capricious, racially invidious, without evidentiary foundation, or arbitrary. Id. at 304. Additionally, we review factual findings for substantial evidence and will not overturn them “unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009). There is no time or numerical limit for filing a motion to reopen the removal proceedings to seek asylum when the motion “is based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered” if such evidence is material, previously unavailable, and could not have been discovered or presented sooner. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). A motion to reconsider “shall specify the errors of law or fact in the previous order and shall be supported by 2 Case: 17-60070 Document: 00514571130 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/25/2018 No. 17-60070 pertinent authority.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Zhao, 404 F.3d at 301. Muvunyi challenges the BIA’s conclusion that the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals