Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02599/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02599-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Nelson Kikubira Luswata
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2599

___________

Nelson Kikubira Luswata, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General of *

the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: May 7, 2004

Filed: May 13, 2004

___________

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. 

Appellate Case: 03-2599 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/13/2004 Entry ID: 1766772 
-2-

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 (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. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2599 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/13/2004 Entry ID: 1766772