Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02858/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02858-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent
Masereh Njie
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-2858

___________________________

Masereh Njie, also known as Masereh Jallow

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Loretta E. Lynch

1

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

___________________________

No. 14-2862

___________________________

Alieu Sireh Jallow

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Loretta E. Lynch

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

Loretta E. Lynch is automatically substituted for Eric H. Holder, Jr., pursuant 1

to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).

Appellate Case: 14-2858 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2015 Entry ID: 4345516 
 Submitted: September 22, 2015

 Filed: December 11, 2015

____________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Masereh Njie and Alieu Sireh Jallow petition for review of the orders of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of their applications for

waiver of inadmissibility and denying their motions to remand. We dismiss the

petitions to the extent they seek review of the discretionary decision to deny the

applications for waiver. We otherwise deny the petitions.

I. Background

Njie and Jallow are natives and citizens of the Gambia. They entered the

United States in May 2002 and August 2005, respectively. Njie married a United

States citizen in December 2005 and divorced him in August 2010. Jallow married

a United States citizen in January 2007. His marriage ended in divorce in June 2009. 

Both Njie and Jallow obtained immigration benefits based on those marriages. 

Njie and Jallow met in the United States and entered into a romantic

relationship in March or April 2006. They have two children together, ages 8 and 6,

both of whom were born in the United States. Njie and Jallow were married in May

2013. For clarity, we will continue to refer to Masereh Jallow by her maiden name,

Njie. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-2858 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2015 Entry ID: 4345516 
In February 2011, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated

separate removal proceedings against Njie and Jallow, alleging that they had

attempted to procure immigration benefits through fraud or willful misrepresentation. 

Njie and Jallow conceded removability and applied for waiver of inadmissibility

under section 237(a)(1)(H) ofthe Immigration and NationalityAct (the Act), 8 U.S.C.

§ 1227(a)(1)(H).

An immigration judge (IJ) held a hearing, during which he received evidence

and heard testimony. He thereafter issued separate written decisions denying Njie’s

and Jallow’s applications for waiver of inadmissibility. The IJ found that Njie and

Jallow were not credible witnesses. Moreover, he found that they had entered into

shammarriages with United States citizens to gain immigration benefits and that they

had denied any wrongdoing, even after being confronted with evidence of their

fraudulent conduct. In deciding whether to waive inadmissibility, the IJ also

considered Njie and Jallow’s positive attributes, including that they had lived in the

United States for many years and were rearing two children who were U.S. citizens. 

Given the totality of the circumstances, however, the IJ concluded that Njie and

Jallow had “failed to establish that[they] merit[] section 237(a)(1)(H) waiver[s] in the

exercise of discretion.” Njie and Jallow appealed the adverse decisions to the BIA. 

Njie and Jallow married each other while their appeals were pending. 

Thereafter, they moved to remand their cases so that they could seek asylum in light

of letters they received in January 2014 from relatives living in the Gambia. They

argued that the letters constituted newly discovered evidence and that their motions

to remand thus met the statutory and regulatory requirements for reopening

proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). Njie and Jallow

submitted the letters, Njie’s completed asylum application, and other supporting

documentation as exhibits to the motions.

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-2858 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/11/2015 Entry ID: 4345516 
In separate letters, Njie’s mother and sister wrote that Njie would be

recircumcised if she were to return to the Gambia. The letters stated that clan elders

had decided to recircumcise Njie because she had married Jallow, who was from an

inferior tribe. Recircumcision would prepare Njie to marry a man from her own tribe,

who already had been chosen for her. Njie’s asylum application listed Jallow as a

derivative beneficiary and stated that Njie would be recircumcised because she had

had children with Jallow. Njie reported in a personal statement that she had been

subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM) when she was a child. She explained

in a letter that she had broken tradition by entering into a relationship with Jallow

without the permission of clan elders and that recircumcision would serve as

punishment for marrying him. An unsworn, electronically signed medical record

stated that Njie had undergone a pelvic exam and that her “[c]litoris [was] not found

upon inspection. Prepuce absent. Flattened tissue with small scar like line where

anterior labia minora would be expected.” 

The BIA dismissed the appeals and denied the motions to remand. It affirmed

the IJ’s denial of the applications for waiver of inadmissibility, stating that “[w]hile

the respondent[s’] equitable considerations are substantial, we nonetheless agree with

the Immigration Judge that these considerations are outweighed by . . . negative

factors and that a favorable exercise of discretion under section 237(a)(1)(H) of the

Act is not warranted.” The BIA denied the motions to remand on three grounds. It 2

concluded that Njie and Jallow had failed to establish changed circumstances that

would allow the IJ to consider Njie’s otherwise untimely asylum application. See 8

U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(i)(A)-(B). Further, the BIA

determined that Njie and Jallow had failed to show that the information set forth in

the letters was previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). Finally, “[g]iven

The IJ also had determined that Njie and Jallow were statutorily ineligible for

2

waiver of inadmissibility. The BIA did not address that determination and instead

affirmed the IJ’s discretionary denial of the respondents’ applications for waiver. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 14-2858 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/11/2015 Entry ID: 4345516 
the respondent[s’] lack of credibility and [their] attempts to defraud immigration

officials, [the BIA was] unable to conclude that the respondent[s] ha[ve]

demonstrated prima facie eligibility for relief to warrant remand.” In their

consolidated appeal, Njie and Jallow argue that the BIA abused its discretion in

dismissing their appeals and in denying their motions to remand. 

II. Discussion

A. Denial of Waiver of Inadmissibility

An alien who procures a visa, other documentation, or admission into the

United States through “fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact” is

inadmissible. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). The Attorney General has discretion to

waive this ground of inadmissibility for an alien who “is the spouse, parent, son, or

daughter of a citizen of the United States,” so long as the alien meets certain

requirements. Id. § 1227(a)(1)(H). We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary

denial of waiver of inadmissibility under this provision. See id. §§ 1227(a)(1)(H),

1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). We do, however, have jurisdiction to review constitutional claims

or questions of law raised in a petition for judicial review from the denial of waiver. 

See id. § 1252(a)(2)(D). 

Njie and Jallow contend that the IJ required them to show that their removal

would cause their children to suffer hardship, even though § 1227(a)(1)(H) does not

require such a showing. They claim that this additional requirement constituted an

error of law, which the BIA failed to address on appeal. Our review of the IJ’s

decision reveals that he did not require a hardship showing. Instead, in deciding

whether to grant the applications for waiver, the IJ mentioned that Njie and Jallow

had not shown that their removal would cause their children to suffer hardship. The

IJ weighed this factor, along with several others, when he decided to deny the

applications for waiver. Although Njie and Jallow have argued that the IJ committed

-5-

Appellate Case: 14-2858 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/11/2015 Entry ID: 4345516 
legal error, they in effect are challenging the IJ’s weighing of the evidence and his

subsequent decision that they “failed to establish that [they] merit[] section

237(a)(1)(H) waiver[s].” As explained above, we do not have jurisdiction to review

the discretionary denial of waiver of inadmissibility. 

B. Motions To Remand 

Njie and Jallow argue that the BIA abused its discretion in denying their

motions to remand. See Clifton v. Holder, 598 F.3d 486, 490 (8th Cir. 2010)

(standard of review). “[W]here a motion to remand is really in the nature of a motion

to reopen or a motion to reconsider, it must comply with the substantive requirements

for such motions.” Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 472 (BIA 1992). When

Njie and Jallow moved the BIA to remand their cases to the IJ, they sought to reopen

their removal proceedings so that the IJ could consider Njie’s application for asylum

and supporting documentation. Accordingly, they were required to meet the

substantive requirements of a motion to reopen proceedings. See id. 

A motion to reopen proceedings must “state the new facts that will be proven

at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted” and “be supported by affidavits or

other evidentiary material.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). Motions to reopen are

disfavored in removal proceedings, “where, as a general matter, every delay works

to the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the United

States.” INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992). Accordingly, the movant bears

a heavy burden to establish that proceedingsshould be reopened. INS v. Abudu, 485

U.S. 94, 110 (1988).

Our review of the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen is deferential. The

Supreme Court has recognized “at least three independent grounds on which the BIA

may deny a motion to reopen: (1) failure by the movant to establish a prima facie

case for the underlying substantive relief sought; (2) failure by the movant to

-6-

Appellate Case: 14-2858 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/11/2015 Entry ID: 4345516 
introduce previously unavailable, material evidence; or (3) a determination [that] the

movant would not be entitled to the discretionary relief sought.” Poniman v.

Gonzales, 481 F.3d 1008, 1011 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing Abudu, 485 U.S. at 104-05). 

Njie and Jallow argue that the BIA erred when it concluded as a threshold

matter that Njie’s asylum application would be rejected as untimely because of her

failure to show changed circumstances that would excuse the one-year deadline for

applying for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D). The BIA concluded that

Njie and Jallow’s marriage constituted merely a change in personal circumstances,

not a change in country conditions, and that the marriage “was not a changed

circumstance materially affecting the respondent[s’] eligibility for relief.” See 8

C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(i) (defining the term “changed circumstances” as used in 8

U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D)). 

There is no real dispute that Njie and Jallow’s marriage constitutes a change

in personal circumstances. See Zheng v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 893, 895 (8thCir. 2008). 

Njie and Jallow contend, however, that the BIA mischaracterized their argument. 

They argue that the BIA should have considered the letters from Njie’s sister and

mother as evidence of changed country conditions and that the letters establish that

Njie’s tribe had instituted a practice of recircumcising women who marry men from

an inferior tribe. This practice, according to Njie and Jallow, constitutes a changed

country condition and excuses the one-year time limit for filing an asylum

application. Njie and Jallow first raised this argument in their replies to the DHS’s

opposition to the motions to remand. Accordingly, although we doubt that the BIA

erred in considering Njie’s asylum application as being based on changed personal

circumstances and thus untimely, even if it did, it nonetheless acted within its

discretion when it denied the motions to remand on other grounds.

As set forth above, the BIA may deny a motion to reopen if the movant fails to

establish a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought. To qualify

-7-

Appellate Case: 14-2858 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/11/2015 Entry ID: 4345516 
for asylum, an applicant must demonstrate that she is unwilling or unable to return

to her home country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on

account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or

political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Accordingly, an applicant may qualify

either because she has suffered past persecution or because she has a well-founded

fear of future persecution. A well-founded fear of future persecution must be both

subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable. Feleke v. INS, 118 F.3d 594, 598

(8th Cir. 1997). Both components must be proved by credible evidence:

“Subjectively, the alien must demonstrate with credible evidence that[s]he genuinely

fears persecution; objectively, [s]he must demonstrate through credible, direct, and

specific evidence that a reasonable person in [her] position would fear persecution.” 

Id. 

Njie and Jallow argue that the letters from Njie’s mother and sister establish

Njie’s well-founded fear of future persecution. The BIA did not abuse its discretion

in rejecting that argument, however, “[g]iven respondent[s’] lack of credibility and

[their] attempts to defraud immigration officials.” The IJ found that Njie and Jallow

had omitted material information and submitted false information to obtain

immigration benefits; that they had altered lease documentsto corroborate their sham

marriages to U.S. citizens; that they “continued to disavow any wrongdoing in the

face of . . . obvious fraud”; and that Njie had made false statements under oath during

the naturalization process. In light of the extent of their marriage fraud scheme, the

frequency with which Njie and Jallow submitted untruthful information, and their

history of forging documents, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in requiring more

than unsworn letters from Njie’s family members to establish Njie’s prima facie

eligibility for asylum.

Njie and Jallow argued in their reply brief and at oral argument that the BIA

is not permitted to impute the adverse credibility finding from their removal

proceedings to the evidence in support of Njie’s asylum application. They contend

-8-

Appellate Case: 14-2858 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/11/2015 Entry ID: 4345516 
that, under Hassan v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 513 (8th Cir. 2007), credibility issues are

treated differently in cases involving FGM and that their cases must be remanded so

that the IJ can determine whether Njie has established a well-founded fear of

recircumcision. We disagree. 

In Hassan, the petitioner sought asylum, claiming that she would be subjected

to persecution because she had married a man from a different tribe and that she was

entitled to asylum because she previously had been subjected to FGM. Id. at 515. 

The IJ concluded that the petitioner’s interclan marriage claim lacked credibility and

that the petitioner was not entitled to asylum based upon the fact that she had

undergone FGM. Id. at 515-16. On appeal, we held that a petitioner who has

undergone FGM is entitled to a presumption of past persecution, and we rejected the

government’s argument that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding on the interclan

marriage claim rebutted this presumption. Id. at 517-18. Because the petitioner’s

evidence regarding FGM was unrebutted, we remanded the case for further

proceedings. Id. at 518-19.

Hassan involved a direct appeal from the denial of an asylum application that

alleged a well-founded fear of persecution based upon the petitioner’s past FGM

experience. This case, however, involves an appeal from the denial of motions to

remand to have removal proceedings reopened. The asylum claim alleged in these

motions was not based on Njie’s past persecution. Indeed, the BIA would have

denied such motionsfor failure to present previously unavailable, material evidence. 

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (stating that a motion to reopen will not be granted unless

the evidence “was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at

the former hearing”); see also id. (stating that a motion to reopen shall not be granted

for the purpose of allowing the alien to apply for discretionary relief, like asylum, if

it appears that the petitioner had notice and an opportunity to apply at the previous

hearing, “unless the relief is sought on the basis of circumstances that have arisen

subsequent to the hearing”). Instead, Njie and Jallow have based the asylum claim

-9-

Appellate Case: 14-2858 Page: 9 Date Filed: 12/11/2015 Entry ID: 4345516 
on fear of future persecution, arguing that “[t]he evidence provided in the letters . . .

confirms a new tribal practice of re-circumcision . . . and therefore establishes a prima

facie case for asylum.” Appellants’ Br. 25. Although “[a]n adverse credibility

finding on one claimdoes not necessarily defeat other claims,” R.K.N. v. Holder, 701

F.3d 535, 538 (8th Cir. 2012), Hassan does not require reversal here, where the case

stands in a much different procedural posture and the asylum claim is based on

different grounds. Because Njie and Jallow engaged in an extensive fraudulent

scheme, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that the evidence they

presented was not credible and thus did not establish Njie’s prima facie eligibility for

asylum.

Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s determination that the

information contained in the letters was not previously unavailable. Although Njie

and Jallow may not have received the letters until January 2014, they failed to show

that the alleged tribal practice of recircumcision “could not by the exercise of due

diligence have been discovered earlier.” Matter of Coelho, 20 I.& N. Dec. at 474 n.4

(quoting Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 414 n.18 (1988)).

III. Conclusion

We dismiss the petitions to the extent they seek review of the discretionary

decision to deny the applications for waiver. We otherwise deny the petitions.

______________________________

-10-

Appellate Case: 14-2858 Page: 10 Date Filed: 12/11/2015 Entry ID: 4345516