Indra Gurung v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 12-1776 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1776 INDRA GURUNG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: December 27, 2012 Decided: January 24, 2013 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Indra Gurung, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order denying her motion to reopen. * country removal. conditions Gurung claims she established changed that make her eligible for relief from We deny the petition for review. Gurung had thirty days from the date of the order from which to file a timely petition for review. U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2006). final See 8 Because the petition was filed June 20, 2012, it is only timely filed as to the May 24, 2012 order denying reopening. jurisdictional in The nature and fidelity to [its] terms. (1995). this thirty must day be time construed period with does not have strict Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 It is not subject to equitable tolling. Court is jurisdiction to review Id. the Thus, Board s February 23, 2012 order finding no clear error with the adverse credibility finding and dismissing Gurung s appeal from the immigration judge s order. 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); * The Board also construed Gurung s motion as a motion for reconsideration and denied it as untimely. Gurung does not challenge that finding. 2 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 changed 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 supported C.F.R. be § by held if the motion affidavits or other 1003.2(c)(1). In unavailable evidence, previously is granted evidentiary addition an to and shall material. identifying applicant seeking be 8 the to establish changed country conditions must demonstrate her prima facie eligibility for asylum, that is, she 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 conclude that the Board discretion denying the motion to reopen. did not abuse its Gurung s new evidence in support of her claim that country conditions had changed did 3 not address the adverse credibility finding. Thus, even if country conditions had changed, Gurung failed to address the finding that her claim that she was targeted by Maoists was not credible. Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because the for facts review. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
