Folivi v. Mukasey, No. 07-1531 (4th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1531 ASSIONGBON JONAS FOLIVI; AKUVI FOLIVI-ANTHONY; DANIELE AYELE FOLIVI; MARTHE WILLIAMS A. FOLIVI, Petitioners, versus MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-477-772) Submitted: December 14, 2007 Decided: December 28, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter Nyoh, PETER NYOH & ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioners. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Susan K. Houser, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jason Xavier Hamilton, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Assiongbon Jonas Folivi, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) denying his motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review. We review the Board s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2007); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Nibagwire v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 153, 156 (4th Cir. 2006). A denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not contemplate reopening motions to reopen. (en banc). and the applicable regulations disfavor M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990) In explaining the degree of deference given to the agency s discretionary review, this court has observed that the decision to deny a motion to reopen need only be reasoned, not convincing. Id. at 310 (quotation marks and citation omitted). We will reverse a denial of a motion to reopen only if the denial is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 745 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1147 (2007). We find the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. Accordingly, we deny the petition for - 2 - 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 * We note Folivi has not challenged the Board s decision not to allow him to file a successive asylum application. It is a well settled rule that contentions not raised in the argument section of the opening brief are abandoned. United States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004). - 3 -

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.