[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-15904 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 3, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
Agency No. A096-272-606
ROOSEVELT ACHIRI ALOMBA,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(June 3, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Roosevelt Achiri Alomba, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA’s”) denial of his March 21,
2008 motion to reopen asylum proceedings and his motion to reconsider its denial
of his November 15, 2007 motion to reopen. The BIA denied Alomba’s March 21
motion to reopen because he failed to meet the heavy burden of showing changed
country conditions in Cameroon and denied his motion to reconsider because he
did not identify any error in its denial of his November 15 motion to reopen that
would warrant reconsideration. In the brief he filed in support of his petition for
review, Alomba argues generally that the BIA erred in denying his motion to
reopen and his motion to reconsider.
“We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of
discretion.” Abdi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 430 F.3d 1148, 1149 (11th Cir. 2005).
Review “is limited to determining whether there has been an exercise of
administrative discretion and whether the matter of exercise has been arbitrary or
capricious.” Id. (quotation omitted). After the BIA has affirmed an Immigration
Judge’s order of removal, the alien may move to have the BIA, in its discretion,
reopen the removal proceedings for the submission of new evidence. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). A motion to reopen proceedings shall not
be granted unless it appears to the BIA that the evidence sought to be offered is
2
material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at
the former hearing. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
In a motion to reopen on the basis of changed circumstances, the alien must
show material evidence that was not available and could not have been discovered
or presented at the previous hearing. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3). An alien who
attempts to show that the evidence is material bears a heavy burden and must
present evidence that satisfies the BIA that, if the proceedings were reopened, the
new evidence likely would change the result in the case. Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
443 F.3d 804, 813 (11th Cir. 2006). Nonetheless, “[t]he Board has discretion to
deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case
for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). Because the evidence submitted by Alomba did
not establish a material change in country conditions, the BIA did not abuse its
discretion in denying his March 21 motion to reopen.
“We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of
discretion.” Calle v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007). “A
motion to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors
of fact or law in the prior [BIA] decision and shall be supported by pertinent
authority.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C), INA
§ 240(c)(6)(C). A motion to reconsider that merely restates the arguments that the
BIA previously rejected provides no reason for the BIA to change its prior
3
decision. Calle, 504 F.3d at 1329. “Therefore, merely reiterating arguments
previously presented to the BIA does not constitute ‘specifying . . . errors of fact or
law’ as required for a successful motion to reconsider.” Id. (quoting 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(b)(1)). Motions to reconsider are disfavored in removal proceedings.
See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S.Ct. 719, 724-25, 116 L.Ed.2d 823
(1992) (discussing motions to reopen and explaining that such motions are
disfavored because, “as a general matter, every delay works to the advantage of the
deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the United States”).
Because Alomba’s motion to reconsider merely reiterated the arguments that
he made in his underlying November 15 motion to reopen, he failed to show errors
of law or fact relating to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider. The BIA
therefore did not err in denying his motion.
PETITION DENIED.
4