NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No. 22-2689 _______________ MARTABA AZAMOVA AKRAMOVA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (No. A099-083-201) Immigration Judge: R.K. Malloy _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on June 22, 2023 Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, and BIBAS and MATEY, Circuit Judges (Filed: July 19, 2023) _______________ OPINION* _______________ BIBAS, Circuit Judge. After missing her immigration court date, Martaba Akramova waited more than eight years to move to reopen her case. Because she has not shown changed country conditions to warrant reopening her case after his lengthy delay, we will deny her petition for review. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. In 2005, Akramova came to the United States on a six-month visa. After she overstayed that visa, she sought asylum. She said she feared persecution in her native Uzbekistan based on her Tajik ethnicity, her Muslim faith, and her husband’s opposition political activity. But she skipped her 2007 hearing and was ordered removed. In 2016, Akramova reappeared and moved to reopen her asylum case in Chicago. She admitted that she had gotten notice of the 2007 hearing and was late, but sought an excep- tion based on changed country conditions. Uzbekistan, she claimed, had started stripping citizenship from expatriates who had lived abroad for at least five years. And she pointed to a news report about a group of Uzbeks who had been arrested, imprisoned, and tortured upon their return. She feared similar treatment. The immigration judge denied her motion in a four-sentence opinion. The Board of Immigration Appeals remanded for more explanation. Before the Chicago judge could do so, Akramova moved her case to Philadelphia. There, a different immigration judge reviewed the evidence, found that she had not proven changed conditions, and denied her motion to reopen. The Board affirmed. She now peti- tions for review. The Board had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(b)(3), 1240.15, and we have ju- risdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review the denial of reopening for abuse of discretion. Bamaca-Cifuentes v. Att’y Gen., 870 F.3d 108, 110 (3d Cir. 2017). That stand- ard is highly deferential; we will reverse the Board’s ruling only if it was “arbitrary, irra- tional, or contrary to law.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). And we accept the 2 administrative factual findings unless the evidence would compel a reasonable adjudicator to decide differently. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Akramova makes three claims, but none shows an abuse of discretion. First, she says the Board should not have rejected her claim of changed country conditions. But the Board correctly reviewed the immigration judge’s findings for clear error and found none. The immigration judge acknowledged Akramova’s evidence, weighed it against State Depart- ment reports, and found that conditions had not grown worse. Evidence supported that decision, and we cannot …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals