Bernard Effiom v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 10-2070 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2070 BERNARD OBI EFFIOM, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 3, 2011 Decided: April 11, 2011 Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Christina Bechak Parascandola, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Bernard Obi Effiom, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his second motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review. An alien may file one motion to reopen within ninety days of the entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2010). This time limit does not apply if the basis for the motion is to seek asylum or withholding of removal based on changed country conditions, if such evidence 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). This court reviews the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2010); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009). The Board s 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. Cir. 2009) Sadhvani v. Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th (citations and internal 2 quotation marks omitted). The motion shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to supported be by held if the motion affidavits or other C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (2010). is granted and evidentiary shall material. be 8 It shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and could not discovered or presented at the former hearing. This court has also recognized have been Id. three independent grounds on which a motion to reopen removal proceedings may be denied: (1) the alien has not established a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought; (2) the alien has not introduced (3) where previously relief is unavailable, discretionary, material the alien entitled to the discretionary grant of relief. evidence; would not and be Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988)). motion to reopen contrary to law. This court will reverse a denial of a only if it is arbitrary, irrational, or Mosere, 552 F.3d at 400 (internal quotation marks omitted). We have considered Effiom s arguments and find them to be without merit. We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen. oral argument because the facts 3 and legal We dispense with 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.
