Workineh Ayele v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 12-1823 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1823 WORKINEH GETACHEW AYELE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 5, 2013 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. NIEMEYER, Decided: Circuit February 13, 2013 Judges, and HAMILTON, Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alan M. Parra, LAW OFFICE OF ALAN M. PARRA, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Senior Litigation Counsel, Leslie McKay, Assistant Director, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Workineh Ethiopia, Getachew petitions for Ayele, review a of native the and Board of citizen of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) order denying his motion to reopen. Ayele claims he established changed country conditions that make him prima facie eligible for relief from removal. We deny the petition for review. This court reviews the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009); 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 a change in 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 be held if the motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits or other 2 evidentiary material. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). In determining whether a motion to reopen contains evidence that demonstrates a material change in country conditions that would justify reopening, the Board compares the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing. In re S Y G , 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007). Board s determination in this regard reviewed for substantial evidence. is a factual The finding See Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 805 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Bi Feng Liu v. Holder, 560 F.3d 485, 491 (6th Cir. 2009); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). Findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). In addition to identifying the previously unavailable evidence, an conditions applicant must seeking demonstrate to his establish prima facie changed country eligibility for asylum; that is, he 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 substantial have reviewed evidence supports the the record Board s and conclude finding that that the conditions that exist presently in Ethiopia are similar to the 3 conditions that existed at the time of Ayele s merits hearing in 2009 and that country conditions have not materially changed. Accordingly, dispense with contentions are oral we deny argument adequately the petition because presented in the the for facts review. We and legal materials before this 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.
