UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1028
ALMAMY KOUROUMA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 12, 2012 Decided: July 19, 2012
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Jeffrey R. Meyer,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Almamy Kourouma, a native and citizen of Guinea,
petitions for review of the December 5, 2011 order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motions for
reopening and for reconsideration. 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.
A motion to reconsider must specify the errors of law
or fact in the immigration judge’s prior decision. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(6)(c) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(2) (2012). This
court reviews the denial of a motion for reconsideration for
abuse of discretion. Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th
Cir. 2009); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006).
The court will reverse the Board’s decision only if it is
arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law. Narine, 559 F.3d at
249. “[A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless
any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006).
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Kourouma’s evidence accompanying his motion to
reopen did not establish a material change in country conditions
that would affect his eligibility for asylum, withholding from
removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture. We also
3
conclude that Kourouma failed to show there was an error of law
or fact that would warrant reconsideration of the prior order.
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