UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1167
ALLAMINE MEALI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 22, 2011 Decided: October 13, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle Beach-Oswald, BEACH-OSWALD IMMIGRATION LAW ASSOCIATES,
P.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant
Attorney General, Derek C. Julius, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Deitz P. Lefort, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Allamine Meali, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen the proceedings.
Because we conclude that substantial evidence supports the
Board’s finding that Meali did not establish that the evidence
was previously unavailable, we deny the petition for review.
This court reviews the denial of a motion to reopen
for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2011); see also
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) (internal quotation marks omitted). 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) (2011). 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. Meali
2
bears a “heavy burden” in meeting the requirements for
reopening. INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 110 (1988).
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 Abudu, 485 U.S. at
104-05). 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 conclude that the Board did not abuse its
discretion finding that Meali failed to meet his burden and show
that the affidavit from the exiled political leader was
previously unavailable. The Board was not acting arbitrarily by
requiring Meali to provide some details regarding what he did to
try to acquire the affidavit prior to the immigration judge’s
merits hearing. Likewise, we conclude that the Board did not
abuse its discretion finding that the mother’s statement was not
shown to be previously unavailable.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
4