Otgonnamar Yuchin v. Jefferson Sessions III

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 June 29, 2018 * Decided June 29, 2018 Before DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge No. 17-3622 OTGONNAMAR YUCHIN, Petition for Review of an Order of the Petitioner, Board of Immigration Appeals v. No. A097-374-540 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. ORDER Otgonnamar Yuchin, who also goes by the name Ganaa Otgoo, is a Mongolian citizen who seeks review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Yuchin wants to file applications for asylum and protection under Article III of the Convention Against Torture. He asserts that he was persecuted by members of the Mongolian People’s Party, and he now fears future * We have agreed to decide this 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. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). No. 17-3622 Page 2 persecution because, after he was found removable in April 2017, he learned that the MPP had returned to power in June 2016. Because the Board did not abuse its discretion, we deny the petition for review. Yuchin was arrested and beaten by members of the MPP before he entered the United States on a student visa in 2004. He was granted asylum and became a legal permanent resident, but two years later he was convicted of aggravated battery and lost his legal status. Yuchin left the United States in 2009 to attend a funeral in Canada; when he reentered, he was immediately placed in removal proceedings. Yuchin then bounced between Illinois criminal court (he was convicted of burglary, but the conviction was later vacated, and of retail theft twice) and immigration court for years. During most of this time Yuchin was incarcerated or in immigration custody. Finally, in April 2017, an immigration judge found Yuchin inadmissible because his retail theft conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). Yuchin unsuccessfully appealed the decision to the Board and did not seek review in this court. Later, however, he filed a motion to reopen the removal proceedings based on newly discovered evidence. The Board denied the motion, finding that the evidence could have been presented at Yuchin’s removal hearing. We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, upholding the Board’s decision unless it lacks a rational explanation or rests on an impermissible ground. See Darinchuluun v. Lynch, 804 F.3d 1208, 1217 (7th Cir. 2015). The Board did not abuse its discretion here. To reopen removal proceedings based on newly discovered evidence, the movant bears a “heavy burden” of showing that the evidence “is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals