NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 11-2227
_____________
KOKOU AMEVAVA AWLIME,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
_____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
United States Department of Justice
Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA No. A098-420-012)
Immigration Judge: Honorable Alberto J. Kiefkohl
_____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 10, 2012
Before: SCIRICA, RENDELL and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: January 17, 2012)
_____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_____________
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Kokou Amevava Awlime petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals‟ (“BIA”) refusal to reopen his case. The BIA held that his motion to reopen
was untimely, rejecting his claim that it was a timely motion in response to changed
country conditions in Awlime‟s native Togo. The BIA further held that Awlime‟s
motion, even if timely, failed to establish a prima facie case for relief because it did
not sufficiently demonstrate a reasonable possibility that Awlime would be tortured or
persecuted if sent back to Togo. We will deny his petition for review.
Mr. Awlime fled from Togo in 2003 to escape persecution. He applied for
asylum in the United States in 2004, claiming he had been persecuted in Togo due to
his activities as a union leader for taxi drivers. His application mentioned, but did not
emphasize, his membership in an opposition political party in Togo called the Union
des Forces du Changement (“UFC”). The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found that he was
not credible and denied relief.1 The BIA dismissed his appeal and we denied his
petition for review, finding that the adverse credibility ruling was supported by
substantial evidence; we denied panel re-hearing on March 13, 2010 and Awlime did
not move to re-open until July 2010.
There is no question that Awlime‟s motion to re-open was filed well beyond the
90 day deadline set out in 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). Awlime argues that his
motion is nonetheless timely under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) because of changed
country conditions. He alleges that since his hearing, the Togolese government has
been attacking UFC members who have taken to the streets protesting the March 2010
1
As part of his application, Awlime submitted photographs purportedly showing him
receiving medical care. He claimed that these pictures were taken in 2001, after he
was tortured by the Togolese government. However, it was discovered that the
photographs were actually taken in 2003. The IJ found Awlime‟s explanation for the
time disparity—that Awlime was trying in 2003 to “memorialize” his condition from
2001—not credible. (A.R. 264-65.)
2
elections, which they contend were rigged. Based on this, he argues that he will likely
be subjected to detention if he returns. He offers two affidavits that attest to his UFC
membership and describe conditions in Togo.
The evidence Awlime offers does not describe any real change in conditions over
time in Togo. Rather, it refers to activity that has occurred over several years,
including some recent examples. Awlime presented evidence of similar (and perhaps
more egregious) acts of political violence against UFC members when he originally
applied for asylum. Moreover, as the BIA noted, nothing in the record indicates any
interest in pursuing Awlime. The arrests that he cites to are of protesters, some of
whom happen to be UFC members. This does not demonstrate that Awlime would be
targeted on his return.
We review the BIA‟s denial of a motion to re-open for abuse of discretion,
“mindful of the „broad‟ deference that the Supreme Court would have us afford [it]”,
Ezeagwuna v. Ashcroft, 325 F.3d 396, 409 (3d Cir. 2003). We will only disturb its
ruling if it was arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law. Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d
166, 174 (3d Cir. 2002). We cannot so conclude here, and, accordingly, will deny
Awlime‟s petition.
3