# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 13, 2019 *

Decided March 13, 2019

Before

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

Nos. 16

‐ 3676 & 17

‐ 1842

ADEOYE O. ADEBOWALE,

Petitioner

,

v

.

WILLIAM P. BARR,

Attorney General of the United States,

Respondent

. Petitions for Review of Orders from the

Board of Immigration Appeals.

No. A098

‐ 814

‐ 677

O R D E R

In Adebowale v. Mukasey

, 546 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 2008), we dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction Adeoye Adebowale’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals

order denying his motion to reopen his asylum case. Adebowale now appeals two

subsequent BIA orders denying two further motions to reopen the case. We

consolidated the appeals for purposes of disposition. Because Adebowale has not

* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and

record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not

significantly aid the court. F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(C). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited onl y in accordance with Fed. R. A pp

. P. 32.1Nos. 16

‐ 3676 & 17

‐ 1842 Page 2

shown changed country conditions to excuse his untimely motions, we affirm in part

and dismiss in part.

Adebowale, a Nigerian

‐ born citizen of the United Kingdom, traveled to the

United States in December 2004 under the Visa Waiver Pilot Program, see 8 C.F.R.

§ 217.2, and overstayed. The following year, he applied for asylum, stating that he faced

persecution in the United Kingdom because of his work as a human rights attorney. But

Adebowale missed his asylum hearing, so an Immigration Judge dismissed the case and

entered an in absentia order of removal; the BIA upheld that decision. Because his

appeal raised only unreviewable questions of fact, we dismissed his appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. See Adebowale

, 546 F.3d at 895.

Adebowale remained in the United States and, in June 2016, moved to reopen his

asylum case based on changed country conditions that, he said, led him to fear for his

safety if he returned to the United Kingdom. Because the 180

‐ day deadline for filing a

motion to reopen an in absentia order had long since passed, see 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), he sought to satisfy one of the exceptions to the time limit by raising

a claim for asylum based on changed country conditions arising in the country of

nationality, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). In a sprawling motion, he cited various

incidents involving American and British police that, he asserted, reflected some

unspecified form of collusion against him. The BIA, however, found “no objective

evidence” of any material change in Britain, and dismissed the motion as untimely,

explaining that any motion to reopen was due within 180 days after the immigration

judge entered the September 2006 in absentia order of removal. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i).

Two months later, Adebowale filed a similar motion seeking reconsideration of

the BIA’s denial of his June 2016 motion, and alternatively seeking to reopen his case

based on changed country conditions. In a cover letter, Adebowale asserted that

“Various News Articles”—which he neither attached nor identified—reflected

increased hostility toward racial minorities in the aftermath of Britain’s vote to leave the

European Union. He also referenced the killing of a Minister of Parliament known for

supporting immigrants’ rights. The BIA concluded that “[w]hether treated as a motion

to reopen or one seeking reconsideration,” Adebowale’s motion was untimely.

See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), (c)(6); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(b), 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). It went on

to characterize the motion as a “virtual[] duplicate” of the one it had recently denied,

and declined to revisit the decision. As for the cover letter, the BIA added that

Adebowale failed to submit the news articles he cited, and even if he had submittedNos. 16

‐ 3676 & 17

‐ 1842 Page 3

them, he had not “shown how such documents would

... have shown materially

changed country conditions in his case.”

Adebowale now seeks review of the BIA’s denial of his June and November 2016

motions. Because his petition relating to his June motion to reopen (No. 16

‐ 3676) was

filed one day late, however, we ordered Adebowale to address in his brief whether an

exception applied under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(a)(3), which extends

the filing period by one day if the clerk’s office is inaccessible on the due date.

Adebowale explained that he tried to drop off his petition after hours on the day it was

due, believing that the clerk’s office would accept it as having been received on that

day, but the office was closed. This explanation, however, is not comparable to the

extraordinary circumstances such as severe weather, natural disaster, or technological

glitches that might excuse an untimely filing. See Carter v. Hodge

, 726 F.3d 917, 920

(7th Cir. 2013); Chao Lin v. U.S. Atty. Gen.

, 677 F.3d 1043, 1045 (11th Cir. 2013). Thus, we

do not have jurisdiction over his first petition (No. 16

‐ 3676), see Ajose v. Gonzales

,

408 F.3d 393, 395 (7th Cir. 2005), and we will deny his motion to submit new evidence.

With regard to Adebowale’s petition to review his November 2016 motion to

reopen (No. 17

‐ 1842), he argues that the BIA erred by failing to take judicial notice of

the unsubmitted news articles that, he maintains, show changed country conditions.

(He does not appear to challenge the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider.) An

applicant seeking to reopen proceedings bears the burden to show (1) changed country

conditions, (2) that are material, and (3) that the evidence showing changed

circumstances was not previously available and could not have been discovered or

presented at the prior hearing in the case. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); Ramos

‐ Braga

v. Sessions

, 900 F.3d 871, 881 (7th Cir. 2018). We review the BIA’s denial of motions to

reopen for abuse of discretion. Id; Yahya v. Sessions

, 889 F.3d 392, 395–96 (7th Cir. 2018).

The BIA properly concluded that Adebowale failed to carry his burden. Even

assuming the BIA could identify and take judicial notice of the news articles, see Shu

Han Liu v. Holder

, 718 F.3d 706, 710 (7th Cir. 2013); Medhin v. Ashcroft

, 350 F.3d 685, 690

(7th Cir. 2003), Adebowale failed to identify the articles or to explain based on the

information purportedly in those articles how they demonstrated “a fundamental shift

in the safety and security of his country,” Yahya

, 889 F.3d at 396.

We have considered Adebowale’s remaining arguments and none has merit.Nos. 16

‐ 3676 & 17

‐ 1842 Page 4

For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS Adebowale’s first petition (No. 16

‐ 3676)

for lack of jurisdiction and AFFIRM the BIA’s decision related to his second

(No. 17

‐ 1842). Adebowale’s motion to submit additional evidence is DENIED

.