NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 14a0870n.06

No. 14-3217

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

FATOUMATA BAH, aka Fatoumata Toupe 

Sow,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW 

FROM THE UNITED STATES 

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION 

APPEALS

BEFORE: BATCHELDER and ROGERS, Circuit Judges; BECKWITH, District Judge.

PER CURIAM. Fatoumata Bah, also known as Fatoumata Toupe Sow, petitions this 

court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal 

from the denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We deny the petition for review.

In 2004, Petitioner filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) under the name Fatoumata Bah, 

claiming to be a native and citizen of Guinea, where she allegedly faced persecution based on her 

membership in the Foulah ethnic group and her membership in the Rally of the Guinean People 

political party. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) subsequently served Petitioner 

with a notice to appear, charging her as an alien present in the United States who had not been

admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). After a hearing, an immigration judge (IJ) 

 



The Honorable Sandra S. Beckwith, United States District Judge for the Southern 

District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
No. 14-3217

Bah v. Holder

- 2 -

denied Petitioner’s application and ordered her removal to Guinea. Petitioner filed a timely 

motion to reopen/reconsider, which the IJ denied. 

Petitioner filed another application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 

protection in 2011. This time, Petitioner used the name Fatoumata Toupe Sow and claimed to be 

a native and citizen of Senegal. As grounds for her application, Petitioner asserted that her 

family had forcibly subjected her to female genital mutilation (FGM) as a child, and that they 

have insisted that she send her United States citizen daughter to Senegal to be circumcised. 

After matching Petitioner’s fingerprints to her prior application, the DHS denied her application 

and placed her under supervision. 

Petitioner then filed another motion to reopen, asserting that she originally filed a false 

application because an African man in the United States had convinced her that she would not be 

able to apply for asylum as a citizen of Senegal but would be granted asylum if she applied as a 

citizen of Guinea. According to Petitioner, this man obtained the identity documents from 

Guinea and prepared the application. Petitioner claimed that she is now presenting the 

“complete and accurate story” and reiterated that her family wants her daughter to return to 

Senegal to undergo FGM, a forced procedure that she, and all other women in her family, had 

been subjected to. Denying Petitioner’s motion to reopen, the IJ determined that Petitioner had 

asserted changed personal circumstances rather than changed country conditions as required to 

fall within the statutory exception to the time and number bars and that she failed to demonstrate 

prima facie eligibility for relief. The BIA dismissed Petitioner’s appeal from the IJ’s decision, 

agreeing that Petitioner’s motion to reopen was time and number barred, that she had based her 

motion on a changed personal circumstance rather than changed country conditions, and that she 
No. 14-3217

Bah v. Holder

- 3 -

had failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief. The BIA further held that Petitioner 

failed to present exceptional circumstances necessary to warrant sua sponte reopening.

We review the denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings for abuse of discretion. 

Bi Feng Liu v. Holder, 560 F.3d 485, 489 (6th Cir. 2009). “This Court will find an abuse of 

discretion if the denial of the motion to reopen ‘was made without a rational explanation, 

inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis such as 

invidious discrimination against a particular race or group.’” Id. at 490 (quoting Allabani v. 

Gonzales, 402 F.3d 668, 675 (6th Cir. 2005)). 

In general, an alien may file one motion to reopen removal proceedings and must file that 

motion within ninety days of the date of the final administrative order of removal. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i). This time limit does not apply to motions to reopen filed for the 

purpose of applying for asylum or withholding of removal if “based on changed country 

conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, 

if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or 

presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.23(b)(4)(i). Petitioner concedes that there were no significant changed country 

conditions in Senegal or Guinea regarding FGM in the period between her initial application and 

the instant motion to reopen but argues that there were significant changes in United States law 

regarding FGM claims during that time. Petitioner cites 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(4)(i)(B), which 

excepts an untimely asylum application for “changes in applicable U.S. law.” Petitioner must 

first satisfy the requirements for a motion to reopen before her asylum application and its 

timeliness will be considered. See Zhang v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 851, 859 (6th Cir. 2008). 
No. 14-3217

Bah v. Holder

- 4 -

Having conceded no changed country conditions, Petitioner cannot satisfy the statutory 

requirements to excuse her untimely motion to reopen.

Finding no abuse of discretion, we deny the petition for review.