UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1225
TRI EFENDY BUDIONO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: August 11, 2010 Decided: August 20, 2010
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
H. Raymond Fasano, MADEO & FASANO, New York, New York, for
Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P.
Nicastro, Senior Litigation Counsel, Sheri R. Glaser, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Tri Efendy Budiono, a native and citizen of Indonesia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen based on changed
country conditions. We deny the petition for review.
An alien may file one motion to reopen within ninety
days of the entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2010).
This time limit does not apply if the basis for the motion is to
seek asylum or withholding of removal based on changed country
conditions, “if such evidence is material and was not available
and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous
proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (2006); see also 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
This court reviews the denial of a motion to reopen
for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24
(1992); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 130 S. Ct. 137 (2009); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2010). The
Board’s “denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed with extreme
deference, given that motions to reopen are disfavored because
every delay works to the advantage of the deportable alien who
wishes merely to remain in the United States.” Sadhvani v.
Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted). The motion “shall state the new facts that will
2
be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and
shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.”
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). It “shall not be granted unless it
appears to the Board that evidence sought to be offered is
material and was not available and could not have been
discovered or presented at the former hearing.” Id. This court
will reverse a denial of a motion to reopen “only if it is
‘arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.’” Mosere, 552 F.3d
at 400 (quoting Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166, 174 (3d Cir.
2002)).
We conclude the Board did not abuse its discretion.
Budiono’s evidence did not show a material change in country
conditions, but only a continuation of some of the same conduct
that he claimed supported a well-founded fear of persecution.
In addition, the Board did not abuse its discretion in finding
Budiono’s evidence was cumulative.
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