**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **2070**

BERNARD OBI EFFIOM , P etitioner ,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. , Attorney General , Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeal s .

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

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia , for Petitioner. Ton y 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precede nt in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bernard Ob i Effiom, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of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 mo tion 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 base d 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 revi ews 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 extre me 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 q uotation 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) (20 10 ) . It “shall not be gra nted 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 c ourt has also recognized three independent grounds on which a moti on 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 unavaila ble, material evidence; and (3) where relief is discret ionary, 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 c ourt will reverse a denial of a motion to reopen only if it is “ arbit rary, irrational, or contrary to law. ” Mosere , 552 F.3d at 400 ( inter nal 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 are4 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED