Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01497/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01497-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bimal Gyawali
Petitioner
Michael B. Mukasey
Respondent

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1497

BIMAL GYAWALI,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals.

Submitted: July 30, 2008 Decided: August 21, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bimal Gyawali, Petitioner Pro Se. Kristin Kay Edison, Daniel Eric

Goldman, James Eugene Grimes, Jr., Office of Immigration

Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,

for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-1497 Doc: 18 Filed: 08/21/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Bimal Gyawali, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(“Board”) denying his motion to reopen. We deny the petition for

review. 

This court reviews the Board’s denial of a motion to

reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2008);

INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Nibagwire v. Gonzales,

450 F.3d 153, 156 (4th Cir. 2006). A denial of a motion to reopen

must be reviewed with extreme deference. Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d

587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999). We will reverse a denial of a motion to

reopen only if the denial is “arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to

law.” Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 745 (4th Cir. 2006)

(internal quotations and citation omitted). We have recognized

three independent grounds for denial of a motion to reopen removal

proceedings: “(1) the alien has not established a prima facie case

for the underlying substantive relief sought; (2) the alien has not

introduced previously unavailable, material evidence; and (3) where

relief is discretionary, the alien would not be entitled to the

discretionary grant of relief.” Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234

(4th Cir. 1998). 

The Board correctly noted that the motion was untimely.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)

(2008). In addition, the Board did not abuse its discretion in

Appeal: 08-1497 Doc: 18 Filed: 08/21/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

finding Gyawali failed to show changed country conditions

warranting a reopening. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

Appeal: 08-1497 Doc: 18 Filed: 08/21/2008 Pg: 3 of 3