Case: 19-60384 Document: 00515608452 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 20, 2020 No. 19-60384 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Samson Michael, also known as Samsom Weldemichael Gebrehiwet, Petitioner, versus William P. Barr, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A213 132 473 Before Graves, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Samson Michael, a native and citizen of Eritrea, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his motions to reopen and to remand. We DENY Michael’s petition for review. * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 19-60384 Document: 00515608452 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2020 No. 19-60384 I. Michael entered the United States without valid documentation in October 2017 and was charged with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Through counsel, Michael conceded the charge and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, alleging that he had deserted the Eritrean military after being persecuted by military officers for several months based on suspected disloyalty to the military. Following a hearing, the IJ issued a written decision on December 15, 2017, denying Michael’s application and ordering his removal to Eritrea. Michael was temporarily released under an order of supervision but was re-detained in November 2018 after the Eritrean government issued travel documents for his removal. In December 2018, Michael hired new counsel and appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA, which dismissed the appeal as untimely. On January 17, 2019, Michael filed a motion to reopen removal proceedings with the IJ based on ineffective assistance of counsel and changed country conditions, which was denied. Michael appealed the IJ’s denial to the BIA and filed a motion to remand for consideration of new evidence. The BIA dismissed the appeal and denied the motion to remand. Michael timely petitioned this court for review of the BIA’s decision, arguing that the BIA abused its discretion in (1) applying the equitable tolling standard to his motion to reopen; (2) finding his motion to reopen did not demonstrate changed country conditions; and (3) denying his motion to remand. II. This court reviews the BIA’s denial of motions to reopen and remand under a “highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009); Ramchandani v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 2 Case: 19-60384 Document: 00515608452 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/20/2020 No. 19-60384 337, 340 & n.6 (5th Cir. 2005). “Accordingly, this court must affirm the BIA’s decision as long as it is not capricious, without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Gomez-Palacios, 560 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals