FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 20, 2012 J OHN LEY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 01 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 77 -2 69 -4 52 FRANKLIN MBI TANG EN OH, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Peti ti on er, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, lll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of the Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (March20 , 20 12 ) Befo re WILSON, PRYOR, an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Fran kl inMb it an g En oh , a na ti ve an d c it iz enof C am ero on , pet it io ns for

rev ie w of the Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s (“ BIA”) ord er d en y in g h is sec on d m ot io n t o re op enhi s ca se forasylu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al un de r th e Im m ig rat io n andNati on al ity Act (“ INA”). Fi rs t, h e arg ue s tha t the BIA ab us edit s di sc ret io n i n d en y in g h is sec on d m ot io n t o re op enbe cau se hi s co un se l’s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cr eat edex cep ti on al cir cu m st an ces an d c au se d h im to rece iv e in su ffi ci en t n ot ic e o f hi s h eari ng . Seco nd , Eno h arg ue s tha t h e p res en te d e vi de nc e of ex tra jud ic ia l k il li ng s i n C am ero onan d tha t the BIA th eref or e ab us edit s di sc ret io n i n a lt ern at iv el y fin di ng th athe di d n otde m on strat e ch an ge d c ou ntry co nd it io ns th atco ul d e xc us e h is ti m e- an d n um eri cal ly-barr edsec on d m ot io n t o reo pe n. Up on rev ie w, we di sm is s the pe ti ti on inpart andde ny the pe ti ti on . Eno h o rig in al ly app li edforasylu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al in19 99 . He fai le d t o app ear f

orhi s re m ov al he ari ng th atwas h el d o n M ay 23 , 20 01 . As a co ns eque nc e, th e Im

m ig rat io n J ud ge (“ IJ ”) d eem edhi s ap pl ic at io n fo r rel ie f ab an do ne d andord eredhi m rem ov ed in ab se nt ia . In J un e 2 00 9, o ve r ei gh t years la te r, Eno h m ov edto reo pe n h is cas e, al le gi ng in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l an d c hang edco un try con di ti on s i n C am ero on . Both the IJ andth e BIA d en ie d the m ot io n. En oh fil eda se co ndm ot io n t o re op enhi s re m ov al pro ceed in gs th atis 2ba se d o n the same gro un ds as h is fir stm ot io n. Th e BIA fo un d the m ot io n h adno

m eri t, an d i t d en ie d h is sec on d m ot io n.
“ W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o re op enfor anab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Lo ny em v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 35 2 F .3d13 38 , 13 40 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (p er cu riam). Ourrev ie w is li m it edto de te rm in in g wh ethe r th e BIA ex erci se d i ts di sc ret io n i n an arb itrary or cap ric io us m an ne r. Abdi v. U.S. Att’ y Gen . , 43 0 F .3d11 48 , 11 49 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m). The B IA’s factua l fi nd in gs are “ co nc lu si ve un le ss a reas on ab le fact fin de r wou ldbe co m pe ll edto co nc lu de to th e co ntrary.” Lo ny em , 35 2 F .3dat 1 34 0. If anali enfai ls to ap pe ar fo r a rem ov al he ari ng , hi s ap pl ic at io n wi ll be de ni ed . 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a(b )(5 )(A). Ord in ari ly, anali enm ay fil e o nl y on e m ot io n to reo pe n h is rem ov al pro ceed in gs , 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a(c) (7 )(A), wh ic h m us t b e fi le d withi n n in ety

day s o f th e en try of a fi na l ad m in is tra ti ve ord er o f rem ov al , 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9a (c)( 7) (C). Tim e an d num eri cal li m it at io ns onm ot io ns to reo pe n, h owe ve r, do no t ap pl y

when “ (1 ) anali enfil es a m ot io n t o re op enth atsee ks asylum , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , or re li ef und er the Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re; (2) th e m ot io n i s p red ic at edonch an ge d c ou ntry co nd it io ns ; an d (3 ) th e ch an ge d co nd it io ns are m at eri al an d c ou ldno t h av e b eendi sc ov eredat the ti m e o f th e
3rem ov al pro ceed in gs .” Ji an g v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 56 8 F .3d12 52 , 12 56 (11 th Cir .

20 09 ) (ci ti ng 8 C.F .R. § 1 00 3.2 3( b) (4 )(i )). Eno h a lre ady

fil eda m ot io n t o re op enba se d o n h is co un se l’s al le ge d in effe ct iv e as si st an ce, an d h e can no t fi le a se co nd . Se e8 C.F .R. § 10 03 .23 (b )(4 )(i i). Th eref or e, Eno ch ’s pet it io n i s d is m is se d i ns of ar as itsee ks to reo pe n re m ov al pro ceed in gs onth is gro un d. Ad di ti on al ly, ti m e an d n um eri cal li mit at io ns are n otsu sp en de d fo r hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al be cau se Eno h h as fai le d t o s ho w th atco nd it io ns inCam ero on have ch an ge d. Th e ev id en ce En oh subm itte d re ga rd in g e xtraju di ci al ki ll in gs paral le ls th e ev id en ce tha t h e subm it te d t o s up po rt h is ori gi na l as y lu m ap pl ic at io n i n 1 99 9. The refo re, we d eny

hi s p et it io n i ns of

ar as itsee ks to reo pe n p ro ceed in gs ba se d o n th es e g ro un ds . PETI TI ON DIS MIS SED I N PART AND DENIE D IN PART .

4