Filed: Aug. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-4169 _ Raymond Baba Atimbaneme, lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner, v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States, lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent. _ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals _ Submitted: August 7, 2017 Filed: August 14, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Raymond Baba Atimbaneme, a citizen of Ghana, petitions for review
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-4169 _ Raymond Baba Atimbaneme, lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner, v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States, lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent. _ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals _ Submitted: August 7, 2017 Filed: August 14, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Raymond Baba Atimbaneme, a citizen of Ghana, petitions for review o..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-4169
___________________________
Raymond Baba Atimbaneme,
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner,
v.
Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States,
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent.
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: August 7, 2017
Filed: August 14, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Raymond Baba Atimbaneme, a citizen of Ghana, petitions for review of an
order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen,
which was based on his claim that counsel provided ineffective assistance in
proceedings on his application for a waiver of inadmissibility.
We grant Atimbaneme’s motion to withdraw his first motion to file an amended
opening brief, and we deny his second motion to file an amended opening brief.
Turning to the merits, we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in
denying the motion to reopen, as the BIA did not fail to offer a rational explanation
for its decision, depart from its established policies without explanation, ignore or
distort the evidence in the record, or rely on legal error or impermissible factors. See
Valencia v. Holder,
657 F.3d 745, 748 (8th Cir. 2011). The petition for review is
denied.
______________________________
-2-