UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1823
WORKINEH GETACHEW AYELE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 5, 2013 Decided: February 13, 2013
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alan M. Parra, LAW OFFICE OF ALAN M. PARRA, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Leslie McKay, Assistant Director, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Workineh Getachew Ayele, a native and citizen of
Ethiopia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“Board”) order denying his motion to reopen. Ayele
claims he established changed country conditions that make him
prima facie eligible for relief from removal. We deny the
petition for review.
This court reviews the denial of a motion to reopen
for abuse of discretion. 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. § 1003.2(a) (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).
To establish a change in country conditions, the
applicant must present evidence that “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). Furthermore, “[a] motion to
reopen proceedings 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
2
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). In determining whether a motion to
reopen contains evidence that demonstrates a material change in
country conditions that would justify reopening, the Board
compares the evidence of country conditions submitted with the
motion to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing.
In re S–Y–G–, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007). The
Board’s determination in this regard is a factual finding
reviewed for substantial evidence. See Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366
F.3d 799, 805 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Bi Feng Liu v. Holder,
560 F.3d 485, 491 (6th Cir. 2009); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546
F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). 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).
In addition to identifying the previously unavailable
evidence, an applicant seeking to establish changed country
conditions must demonstrate his prima facie eligibility for
asylum; that is, he must demonstrate that the new evidence would
likely alter the result of his case. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S.
94, 104-05 (1988); Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir.
1998).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that
substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the
conditions that exist presently in Ethiopia are similar to the
3
conditions that existed at the time of Ayele’s merits hearing in
2009 and that country conditions have not materially changed.
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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
4