Zouwera Salifou v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-1000 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1000 ZOUWERA SALIFOU, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: July 9, 2013 Decided: July 17, 2013 Before AGEE, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sandra Greene, GREENE FITZGERALD ADVOCATES & CONSULTANTS, York, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Jeffrey J. Bernstein, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Zouwera Salifou, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge s denial of Salifou s request to renew her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Board s order also denied Salifou s motion to remand. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the prior decisions Salifou s motions of to the immigration reopen and court remand, and and the the Board, supporting evidence, and conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). denial of Salifou s discretion. motion to We have also reviewed the remand and find no abuse of See Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir. 1998) (setting forth standard of review). Although we review legal issues de novo, see Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008), we find no support for Salifou s contention that she was entitled to a remand under Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1 (2008), for a factual assessment as to her continued interest in voluntary departure following the filing of her motion to remand. We further discern no error in the agency s conclusion that review, upon 2 reopening, was limited to Salifou s eligibility for voluntary departure. See Jungming Li v. Holder, 656 F.3d 898, 904 n.1 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that nothing in Matter of M-D-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 138, 141 (B.I.A. 2007), suggests that a petitioner could use the remand as a venue to challenge orders denying relief that the [Board] has affirmed and clarifying that the case merely recognizes the immigration judge s authority to consider new evidence if it would support a motion to reopen the proceedings). declined to Finally, reinstate we conclude Salifou s that grant of the Board voluntary properly departure pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(3)(ii) (2013). We therefore deny reasons stated by the Board. 30, 2012). legal before petition for review for the See In re: Salifou (B.I.A. Nov. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. PETITION DENIED 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.
