UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1497
BIMAL GYAWALI,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 30, 2008 Decided: August 21, 2008
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bimal Gyawali, Petitioner Pro Se. Kristin Kay Edison, Daniel Eric
Goldman, James Eugene Grimes, Jr., Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bimal Gyawali, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) denying his motion to reopen. We deny the petition for
review.
This court reviews the Board’s denial of a motion to
reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2008);
INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Nibagwire v. Gonzales,
450 F.3d 153, 156 (4th Cir. 2006). A denial of a motion to reopen
must be reviewed with extreme deference. Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d
587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999). We will reverse a denial of a motion to
reopen only if the denial is “arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to
law.” Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 745 (4th Cir. 2006)
(internal quotations and citation omitted). We have recognized
three independent grounds for denial of a motion to reopen removal
proceedings: “(1) the alien has not established a prima facie case
for the underlying substantive relief sought; (2) the alien has not
introduced previously unavailable, material evidence; and (3) where
relief is discretionary, the alien would not be entitled to the
discretionary grant of relief.” Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234
(4th Cir. 1998).
The Board correctly noted that the motion was untimely.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)
(2008). In addition, the Board did not abuse its discretion in
- 2 -
finding Gyawali failed to show changed country conditions
warranting a reopening.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -