Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02801/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02801-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Ngozi Beatrice Nnebedum
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2801

___________

Ngozi Beatrice Nnebedum, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the

* Board of Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General *

of the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: November 7, 2006

Filed: November 14, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ngozi Beatrice Nnebedum petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motions to reopen and reconsider the BIA’s

earlier decision affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) removal order, which denied

her requests for asylum, withholding or cancellation of removal, and relief under the

Convention Against Torture. In support of her petition, Nnebedum argues that she is

eligible for asylum based upon past persecution; that the IJ violated her due process

rights by refusing to allow her children to testify at the merits hearing regarding her

past persecution; and that the BIA abused its discretion in denying as untimely and

numerically barred motions characterized as successive motions to reopen.

Appellate Case: 05-2801 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/14/2006 Entry ID: 2109218
-2-

Respondent opposes the petition on the merits and additionally moves to dismiss the

petition under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. 

To begin, we deny respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition. Nothing in the

record suggests that Nnebedum is hiding from authorities or cannot be located, and

thus we do not consider her to be a fugitive. Cf. Antonio-Martinez v. INS, 317 F.3d

1089, 1092-93 (9th Cir. 2003) (applying fugitive disentitlement doctrine where neither

petitioner’s counsel nor INS could locate him; explaining that prospect of

disentitlement “provides a strong incentive to maintain contact with the INS and

counsel”); Arana v. INS, 673 F.2d 75, 76-77 (3d Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (applying

doctrine where petitioner concealed his whereabouts from authorities and his own

counsel conceded he could not be located).

We hold that we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of asylum because

Nnebedum did not timely petition for review of the BIA’s decision affirming the IJ’s

removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (petition for review must be filed no later

than 30 days after date of final order of removal); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405-06

(1995) (deportation order is final and reviewable when issued, and finality is not

affected by subsequent filing of motion to reconsider; court of appeals lacked

jurisdiction to review deportation order where petition for review was not filed within

statutory filing period).

Nnebedum did timely seek review of the BIA’s denial of her motion for

reconsideration, in which she raised her due process argument related to the testimony

of her children. However, we hold that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying

those motions because Nnebedum had conceded at the merits hearing that her children

had no firsthand knowledge of her alleged past persecution. See Esenwah v. Ashcroft,

378 F.3d 763, 765 (8th Cir. 2004) (BIA’s denial of relief on motion for

reconsideration is reviewed under abuse-of-discretion standard that is considerably

more deferential than ordinary standard for reviewing agency decisions; abuse of

Appellate Case: 05-2801 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/14/2006 Entry ID: 2109218
-3-

discretion is found only when BIA’s decision lacks rational explanation, departs from

established policies, invidiously discriminates against particular race or group, ignores

relevant factors, or distorts important aspects of claim), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 962

(2005).

Finally, we conclude that the BIA properly treated Nnebedum’s motion to

submit supplemental evidence (her son’s I-130 petition) and related motion to remand

as successive motions to reopen, and we find no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s

denial of those motions as untimely and numerically barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)

(2005) (motion for purpose of affording alien opportunity to apply for any form of

discretionary relief on basis of circumstances that have arisen after hearing is motion

to reopen; alien may file only one motion to reopen removal proceedings, and motion

must be filed within 90 days of decision sought to be reopened; motion will be

deemed motion to remand if filed while appeal is pending before BIA).

The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2801 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/14/2006 Entry ID: 2109218