### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

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 an d c i tizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigratio n Ap p eals (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. See8 CFR § 1003.2(c)(2) and (3). A motion to reopen must state new f a c t s t o b e proved at a hearing and must be supported by “evidenti a ry m aterial.” § 1003.2(c)(1). We employ a U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Janu ary3, 201 3 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-60026 Document: 00512100029 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/03/2013No. 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 s t a n d 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 C ir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The BIA’s decision on Nyemb’s motion easily meets this standard. Nyemb inaccurately asserts th a t the BIA disregarded documents submitted with his motion. The BIA’s order makes clear th a t all of Nyemb’s documents were considered, even th e ones that the BIA noted to be lacking authentication or proper certificati o n . 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 persuasiv e s h o w i ng—even considering the new documents—that he could prevail o n a claim of changed country conditions. Nyemb claims that conditions in C a meroon 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. Ho w e v er, 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