UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1523
FREDDIE LUBOYA MUSANGU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 11, 2012 Decided: July 2, 2012
Before KING, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Freddie Luboya Musangu, Petitioner Pro Se. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Freddie Luboya Musangu, a native and citizen of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing
his appeal from the immigration judge’s order denying his motion
to reopen. 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. § 1003.23(b) (2012). The
time limit does not apply if the basis for the motion is to seek
asylum 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. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i).
This court reviews the denial of a motion to reopen
for abuse of discretion. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-
24 (1992); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009);
see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3) (2012). The “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
2
hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall be
supported by affidavits and other evidentiary material.” 8
C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3). Also, the motion shall not be granted
unless it appears to the immigration judge that the evidence
“sought to be offered is material and was not available and
could not have been discovered or presented at the former
hearing.” Id.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that
substantial evidence supports the finding that Musangu did not
file a timely motion to reopen and that his evidence was
repetitive of evidence submitted prior to the merits hearing and
it did not show a change in country conditions that would
warrant excusing the late motion.
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
3