IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-60026

Summary Calendar

GUSTAVE LE GRAND FILS YEN NYEMB,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A088 824 200

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gustave Le Grand Fils Yen Nyemb, a native and citizen of Cameroon,

petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Nyemb concedes that his

motion was untimely and could only result in relief if he demonstrated changed

circumstances in Cameroon. See 8 CFR § 1003.2(c)(2) and (3).

A motion to reopen must state new facts to be proved at a hearing and

must be supported by “evidentiary material.” § 1003.2(c)(1). We employ a

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 3, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-60026 Document: 00512100029 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/03/2013
No. 12-60026

“highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard” when reviewing the denial of

a motion to reopen. Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 549 (5th Cir.

2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Even a decision that we

might think wrong will stand if “it is not capricious, racially invidious, utterly

without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary

rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Zhao v. Gonzales,

404 F.3d 295, 304 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). The BIA’s decision on Nyemb’s motion easily meets this standard.

Nyemb inaccurately asserts that the BIA disregarded documents

submitted with his motion. The BIA’s order makes clear that all of Nyemb’s

documents were considered, even the ones that the BIA noted to be lacking

authentication or proper certification. The BIA specifically compared the

documents submitted with the motion to reopen to the country report submitted

when Nyemb appeared before the immigration judge in his removal proceeding. 

The BIA’s ruling was that Nyemb failed to make a persuasive showing—even

considering the new documents—that he could prevail on a claim of changed

country conditions.

Nyemb claims that conditions in Cameroon have worsened because the

authorities there will now harm not only him but his family on account of his

political protests in the United States against the authorities in Cameroon. 

However, Nyemb testified in his removal proceedings that Cameroonian

authorities had threatened harm to his family as early as 2007, before he sought

asylum in the United States. Nyemb fails to show that the BIA acted arbitrarily

or even unreasonably in concluding that he could show changes in his personal

circumstances only, not in conditions in Cameroon. See Altamirano-Lopez, 435

F.3d at 549.

PETITION DENIED.

2

 Case: 12-60026 Document: 00512100029 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/03/2013