UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2272
JIBIN CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: April 20, 2012 Decided: April 27, 2012
Before WILKINSON and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas D. Barra, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F.
Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer L.
Lightbody, Senior Litigation Counsel, Nicole J. Thomas-Dorris,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jibin Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, 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.
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) (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) (2011); 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) (2011). 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 (citing Sevoian v.
Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166, 174 (3d Cir. 2002)).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
Board did not abuse its discretion finding Chen did not show a
change in country conditions that would excuse a late motion to
reopen. There was no error in the Board’s finding that Chen’s
change in personal circumstances was not a change in country
3
conditions. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 991 (9th
Cir. 2010) (recognizing the “perverse incentive that would
result from granting an applicant reopening based on a ‘self-
induced’ changed in personal circumstance” such as a sudden
desire to become politically active). We further conclude that
substantial evidence supports the finding that Chen failed to
show an actual change in country conditions.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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