UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2070

BERNARD OBI EFFIOM,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: March 3, 2011 Decided: April 11, 2011

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, 

Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney 

General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Christina Bechak 

Parascandola, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Bernard Obi Effiom, a native and citizen of Cameroon, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals denying his second motion to reopen. We deny the 

petition for review.

An alien may file one motion to reopen within ninety 

days of the entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2010). 

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) (2006); see also 8 

C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

This court reviews the denial of a motion to reopen 

for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2010); 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) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 
3

The motion “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 

C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (2010). 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.

This court has also recognized three independent 

grounds on which a motion to reopen removal proceedings may be 

denied: “(1) the alien has not established a prima facie case 

for the underlying substantive relief sought; (2) the alien has 

not introduced previously unavailable, material evidence; and 

(3) where relief is discretionary, the alien would not be 

entitled to the discretionary grant of relief.” Onyeme v. INS, 

146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 

94, 104-05 (1988)). This court will reverse a denial of a 

motion to reopen only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or 

contrary to law.” Mosere, 552 F.3d at 400 (internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

We have considered Effiom’s arguments and find them to 

be without merit. We conclude that the Board did not abuse its 

discretion by denying the motion to reopen. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 
4

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED