UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1085

CATHERINE ANGELE DANKAM,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: September 14, 2016 Decided: September 30, 2016

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, 

Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy

Assistant Attorney General, Eric W. Marsteller, Senior 

Litigation Counsel, Maarja T. Luhtaru, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Catherine Angele Dankam, a native and citizen of Cameroon, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen. For the reasons 

set forth below, we deny the petition for review.

An alien may file one motion to reopen within 90 days of the 

entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), 

(C) (2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2016). This time limit 

does not apply if the basis for the motion is to seek asylum or 

withholding of removal based on changed country conditions, “if 

such evidence 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); accord 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of 

discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2016); INS v. Doherty, 502 

U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 

(4th Cir. 2009). The Board’s “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). The motion “shall state the 

new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the 
3

motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits or other 

evidentiary material.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). It “shall not 

be granted unless it appears to the Board that evidence sought 

to be offered is material and was not available and could not 

have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.” Id. 

Here, the Board correctly found that Dankam’s motion was 

untimely because it was not filed within 90 days of the final 

administrative decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). We further 

conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that 

Dankam failed to establish changed country conditions excusing a 

late or numerically barred motion to reopen. We have considered 

Dankam’s remaining arguments, including her due process claim, 

and conclude that they are without merit. 

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