Case ID: f-appx_97/html/0062-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nelson Kikubira LUSWATA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States of America, Respondent.
    No. 03-2599.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted May 7, 2004.
    Decided May 13, 2004.
    Nelson Kikubira Luswata, Woodbury, MN, pro se.
    Linda S. Wendtland, John S. Hogan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before BYE, MCMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Nelson Luswata, a native and citizen of Uganda, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Luswata argues the BIA erred in not following its established standard of review in deciding his motion to reopen, not considering his newly acquired evidence that was unavailable when he appeared before the immigration judge, and not issuing a written decision revealing the rationale for its decision to deny his motion.

After careful consideration, we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (BIA has discretion to reopen), because Luswata had not shown that the new evidence “was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the [removal] hearing,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 107-08, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (motions to reopen deportation proceedings are disfavored because of strong public interest in bringing litigation to close); Raffington v. INS, 340 F.3d 720, 721, 724 (8th Cir.2003) (standard of review; court reviewing denial of motion to reopen does not have jurisdiction to review underlying order). To the extent Luswata asserts a due process challenge to the BIA’s streamlined-review procedure, the argument is unavailing. Cf. Loulou v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 706, 708-09 (8th Cir.2003) (concluding affirmance without opinion of immigration judge’s decision does not violate alien’s due process rights).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.