UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1882
KESTER IGEMHOKHAI OBOMIGHIE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 2, 2011 Decided: January 4, 2012
Before MOTZ, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kester Igemhokhai Obomighie, Petitioner Pro Se. Ada Elsie
Bosque, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kester Igemhokhai Obomighie, a native and citizen of
Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen as
untimely and for failing to show a change in country conditions.
We deny the petition for review.
We note that the only order before us is the July 19,
2011 order denying Obomighie’s motion to reopen. 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) (2011). The 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); 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); 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)
2
(citations and 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). Further, the motion “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 (quoting Sevoian v.
Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166, 174 (3d Cir. 2002)).
We conclude that the Board did not abuse its
discretion by finding that Obomighie failed to show a change in
country conditions that would excuse the late filing of the
motion to reopen. We also find that the evidence submitted with
3
his motion to reopen did not show that he was prima facie
eligible for relief from removal.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We deny
as moot the motion for a stay of removal. We also deny the
motion to appoint counsel. 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
4