UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1823

WORKINEH GETACHEW AYELE,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: February 5, 2013 Decided: February 13, 2013

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alan M. Parra, LAW OFFICE OF ALAN M. PARRA, Silver Spring, 

Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General, Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Senior Litigation 

Counsel, Leslie McKay, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration 

Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, 

D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Workineh Getachew Ayele, a native and citizen of 

Ethiopia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals’ (“Board”) order denying his motion to reopen. Ayele 

claims he established changed country conditions that make him 

prima facie eligible for relief from removal. We deny the 

petition for review.

This court reviews the denial of a motion to reopen 

for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 

(1992); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009); 

see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2012). The “denial of a motion 

to reopen is reviewed with extreme deference, given that motions 

to reopen are disfavored because every delay works to the 

advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in 

the United States.” Sadhvani v. Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th 

Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

To establish a change in country conditions, the 

applicant must present evidence that “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) (2006); see 

also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Furthermore, “[a] motion to 

reopen proceedings shall state the new facts that will be proven 

at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall be 

supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.” 8 
3

C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). In determining whether a motion to 

reopen contains evidence that demonstrates a material change in 

country conditions that would justify reopening, the Board 

compares the evidence of country conditions submitted with the 

motion to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing. 

In re S–Y–G–, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007). The 

Board’s determination in this regard is a factual finding 

reviewed for substantial evidence. See Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 

F.3d 799, 805 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Bi Feng Liu v. Holder, 

560 F.3d 485, 491 (6th Cir. 2009); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 

F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). Findings of fact are conclusive 

unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude 

to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). 

In addition to identifying the previously unavailable 

evidence, an applicant seeking to establish changed country 

conditions must demonstrate his prima facie eligibility for 

asylum; that is, he must demonstrate that the new evidence would 

likely alter the result of his case. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 

94, 104-05 (1988); Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir. 

1998). 

We have reviewed the record and conclude that 

substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the 

conditions that exist presently in Ethiopia are similar to the 
4

conditions that existed at the time of Ayele’s merits hearing in 

2009 and that country conditions have not materially changed. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED