UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1882

KESTER IGEMHOKHAI OBOMIGHIE,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: December 2, 2011 Decided: January 4, 2012

Before MOTZ, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kester Igemhokhai Obomighie, Petitioner Pro Se. Ada Elsie 

Bosque, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Kester Igemhokhai Obomighie, a native and citizen of 

Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen as 

untimely and for failing to show a change in country conditions. 

We deny the petition for review. 

We note that the only order before us is the July 19, 

2011 order denying Obomighie’s motion to reopen. 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) (2011). The 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); 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); 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) 
3

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 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). Further, the motion “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 (quoting Sevoian v. 

Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166, 174 (3d Cir. 2002)).

We conclude that the Board did not abuse its 

discretion by finding that Obomighie failed to show a change in 

country conditions that would excuse the late filing of the 

motion to reopen. We also find that the evidence submitted with 
4

his motion to reopen did not show that he was prima facie 

eligible for relief from removal. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We deny 

as moot the motion for a stay of removal. We also deny the 

motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED