Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02939/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02939-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gelana Amente
Petitioner
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2939

___________

Gelana Amente, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review

v. * of an Order of the

* Board of Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: August 21, 2006

Filed: August 24, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gelana Amente, a citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen removal

proceedings. Amente entered the United States in 1993, and in 2000 he was charged

with being removable. He conceded removability and an Immigration Judge (IJ)

denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

Convention Against Torture. In February 2003, the BIA summarily affirmed the IJ’s

decision, and a panel of this court denied Amente’s petition for review. See Amente

v. Ashcroft, 89 Fed. Appx. 591, 592 (8th Cir. 2004). 

Appellate Case: 05-2939 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2006 Entry ID: 2081808
-2-

In April 2005 Amente moved the BIA to reopen his case on the ground that he

had new evidence: an affidavit and two letters, stating that Oromos were still being

persecuted in Ethiopia; and an American Journal of Public Health article summarizing

the results of a study on torture and associated problems among Somali and Oromo

refugees. Amente argued that this evidence showed it was more likely than not he

would be tortured if returned to Ethiopia. The BIA denied the motion to reopen as

untimely, and added that Amente did not qualify for the asylum-application exception

to the time limitation because he failed to establish changed circumstances in Ethiopia.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Amente’s motion to reopen as

untimely, because it was not filed within 90 days of the final removal order. See 8

U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C)(i); Kanyi v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1087, 1089 (8th Cir. 2005)

(standard of review). The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in finding that Amente

failed to establish changed circumstances in Ethiopia. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229a(c)(6)(C)(ii) (time limitation does not apply to motion to reopen in which alien

seeks to apply for asylum or withholding of removal based on changed circumstances

arising in country to which alien is to be removed); Panjwani v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d

626, 632-33 (5th Cir. 2005) (BIA did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen

deportation proceedings based on untimely nature of motion and insufficient

evidence--lacking in detail and not different from that presented at removal hearing--

that country conditions had materially changed). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition. We also deny Amente’s motion for

expedited review.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2939 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2006 Entry ID: 2081808