Khalid Baagmil v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-1109 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1109 KHALID OMER OBEID BAAGMIL, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 24, 2013 Decided: July 9, 2013 Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tamar L. Jones, FAYAD LAW P.C., Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Keith L. McManus, Senior Litigation Counsel, Timothy G. Hayes, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Khalid Omer Obeid Baagmil, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board Immigration Appeals ( Board ) denying his motion to reopen. of 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) (2013). The time limit does not apply if the basis for the motion is to seek asylum 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. U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). 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); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3) (2013). 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 remain in the United States. alien who wishes merely to Sadhvani v. Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The motion shall state the new facts that will be proven at a 2 hearing to supported be by held if the motion affidavits and other C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3). is granted evidentiary and shall material. be 8 Also, the motion shall not be granted unless it appears to the immigration judge that the evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and could not have hearing. been discovered or presented at the former Id. We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in finding that Baagmil did not show a change in country conditions that would excuse the ninety day period for filing a motion to reopen. Because Baagmil did not show a change in country conditions in Ethiopia, the Board did not need to consider whether he was prima facie eligible for asylum or related relief. We further conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying reopening based on Baagmil s claim that he wanted to apply for adjustment of status. 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 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.
