Filed: Feb. 11, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1687 EUNICE TYABO BANKOLE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: January 21, 2010 Decided: February 11, 2010 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed in part; denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Goren, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. T
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1687 EUNICE TYABO BANKOLE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: January 21, 2010 Decided: February 11, 2010 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed in part; denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Goren, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. To..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1687
EUNICE TYABO BANKOLE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 21, 2010 Decided: February 11, 2010
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed in part; denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
David Goren, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony
West, Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer L. Lightbody, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Robbin K. Blaya, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eunice Tyabo Bankole, whose identity and citizenship
are in dispute, petitions this court for review of an order from
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”), which dismissed her
appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her
motions to reopen proceedings and for reconsideration of the
IJ’s prior order denying her asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.
This court reviews the Board’s denial of a motion to
reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2009);
INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Nken v. Holder,
585
F.3d 818, 821 (4th Cir. 2009). A denial of a motion to reopen
must be reviewed “with extreme deference.” Barry v. Gonzales,
445 F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir. 2006). This court will reverse the
denial of a motion to reopen only if the denial is “arbitrary,
irrational, or contrary to law.” Mosere v. Mukasey,
552 F.3d
397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted),
cert. denied,
130 S. Ct. 137 (2009).
Bankole first argues the IJ abused her discretion by
failing to sua sponte reopen proceedings. However, we lack
jurisdiction to review the discretionary refusal to sua sponte
reopen proceedings. Mosere, 552 F.3d at 400-01. Accordingly,
the petition for review of this claim is dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
2
Bankole next asserts the IJ’s denial of reopening for
the admission of supplemental evidence was contrary to law.
Pursuant to the governing regulations, such supplemental
evidence must have been unavailable or undiscoverable at the
time of the initial hearing. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (2009);
see Barry, 445 F.3d at 747. After determining that Bankole
possessed the evidence proffered with the motion to reopen at
the time of the merits hearing, the IJ denied the motion. The
Board affirmed this decision. Because neither decision was
contrary to the law of this Circuit,
Mosere, 552 F.3d at 400, we
deny the petition for review as to this claim.
This court similarly reviews the denial of Bankole’s
motion for reconsideration for an 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). We will reverse
the Board’s decision only if it is arbitrary, irrational, or
contrary to law.
Narine, 559 F.3d at 249.
A motion for reconsideration asserts that the Board
made an error in its earlier decision. Jean, 435 F.3d at 482-
83; Obioha v. Gonzales,
431 F.3d 400, 408 (4th Cir. 2005).
Motions that simply repeat contentions that have already been
rejected are insufficient to convince the Board to reconsider a
previous decision. Ogundipe v. Mukasey,
541 F.3d 257, 263 (4th
Cir. 2008).
3
Bankole argues the IJ and the Board abused their
discretion in denying reconsideration of the order denying
relief, because Bankole satisfied her burden of proof. However,
given the procedural context of this petition for review,
Bankole must demonstrate that the denial of reconsideration of
the evidentiary issues was arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to
law. Narine, 559 F.3d at 249. We have carefully reviewed the
record and conclude that Bankole has failed to make the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review
of this claim.
Finally, Bankole maintains the Board abused its
discretion in affirming the denial of reconsideration of her
claim that exceptional circumstances justified her untimely
asylum application. However, we lack jurisdiction to consider
this claim. See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir.
2009) (holding that this court “lack[s] jurisdiction to review
the immigration judge’s discretionary determination, as affirmed
by the [Board], that [an alien] had not demonstrated changed or
extraordinary circumstances to excuse her untimely filing”),
cert. denied, ___ S. Ct. ___,
2010 WL 58386 (U.S. Jan. 11, 2010)
(No. 09-194); see also
Jean, 435 F.3d at 480-81. Accordingly,
we dismiss the petition for review as to this issue for lack of
jurisdiction.
4
For these reasons, the petition for review is
dismissed in part for lack of jurisdiction and denied in part.
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 DISMISSED IN PART;
DENIED IN PART
5
