UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2070
BERNARD OBI EFFIOM,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 3, 2011 Decided: April 11, 2011
Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Christina Bechak
Parascandola, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bernard Obi Effiom, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals denying his second motion to reopen. 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. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2010); INS v.
Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552
F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009). 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) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
2
The motion “shall state the new facts that will 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) (2010). 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 has also recognized three independent
grounds on which a motion to reopen removal proceedings may be
denied: “(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) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S.
94, 104-05 (1988)). 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 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
We have considered Effiom’s arguments and find them to
be without merit. We conclude that the Board did not abuse its
discretion by denying the motion to reopen. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
4