13-961 Osei-Wusu v. Holder BIA Straus, IJ A099 213 037 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT** 

## SUMMARY ORDER

**RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER**  **FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER**  **IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY**  **ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 14 th** **day of April, two thousand fourteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 7 **GERARD E. LYNCH,** 8 **CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **KWADJO AKYAW OSEI-WUSU, AKA ACHAW** 13 **OSEI-OWUSU,** 14 Petitioner**,** 15 16 **v. 13-961** 17 **NAC** 18 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 19 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 Respondent**.** 21

**_______________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER: Ryan E. Bausch, West Hartford, CT.** 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney** 26 **General; Douglas E. Ginsburg,** 27 **Assistant Director; Matthew B.** 28 **George, Trial Attorney, Office of** 29**Immigration Litigation, United** 1 **States Department of Justice,** 2 **Washington, D.C.** 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Kwadjo Akyaw Osei-Wusu, a native of Nigeria 9 and citizen of Ghana, seeks review of a February 19, 2013, 10 order of the BIA, affirming the September 19, 2011, decision 11 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied his motion to 12 reopen as untimely. In re Kwadjo Akyaw Osei-Wusu , No. A099 13 213 037 (B.I.A. Feb. 19, 2013), aff’gNo. A099 213 037 14 (Immig. Ct. Hartford, CT Sept. 19, 2011). We assume the 15 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 16 procedural history in this case. 17 We review the BIA’s decision affirming an IJ’s denial 18 of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Iavorski v. 19
INS, 232 F.3d 124, 128 (2d Cir. 2000); see Ali v. Gonzales , 20 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). An alien 21 seeking to reopen proceedings is required to file a motion 22 to reopen no later than 90 days after the date on which the 23 final administrative decision was rendered. See 8 U.S.C. 24 § 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is no 25
2dispute that Osei-Wusu’s motion to reopen, filed in 2011, 1 was untimely because his order of removal became final in 2 2006. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B)(I). Osei-Wusu 3 contends, however, that his creation of a Facebook group 4 page critical of the Ghanaian government constitutes 5 materially changed country conditions excusing his motion 6 from the applicable time limitation. 7 We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion 8 in denying Osei-Wusu’s motion for failure to demonstrate his 9 prima facie eligibility for relief. See Jian Hui Shao v. 10 Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168 (2d Cir. 2008) (recognizing that 11 an alien’s “ability to secure reopening depends on a 12 demonstration of prima facie eligibility for [relief], which 13 means she must show a ‘realistic chance’ that she will be 14 able to obtain such relief” (citations omitted)). The 15 agency reasonably determined that Osei-Wusu did not 16 demonstrate hisprima facie eligibility for asylum and 17 withholding of removal because the State Department’s 2010 18 Human Rights Report contained no reports of internet 19 monitoring and indicated that Ghanaians were free to engage 20 in peaceful expression of views online. See Jian Xing Huang 21
v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 128-29 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that 22

3absent solid support in the record for the petitioner’s 1 assertion that he would be persecuted, his fear was 2 “speculative at best”). The agency also properly noted that 3 Osei-Wusu had failed to present any evidence showing that 4 his Facebook group page was widely viewed.See Hongsheng 5 Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008) (“[T]o 6 establish a well-founded fear of persecution in the absence 7 of any evidence of past persecution, an alien must make some 8 showing that authorities in his country of nationality are 9 either aware of his activities or likely to become aware of 10 his activities.”). In addition, the agency reasonably 11 determined that Osei-Wusu had not demonstrated his prima 12 facie eligibility for adjustment of status because he 13 submitted no evidence showing that his wife was a United 14 States citizen or that he was the beneficiary of an approved 15 visa petition. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (listing eligibility 16 requirements for adjustment of status). 17 Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying 18 Osei-Wusu’s motion for failure to demonstrate hisprima 19 facie eligibility for relief, we decline to consider his 20 challenge to the agency’s alternative finding that country 21 conditions had not materially changed. See INS v. 22

4Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule 1 courts and agencies are not required to make findings on 2 issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results 3 they reach.”). 4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 5 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the stay of 6 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 7 is VACATED. 8
FOR THE COURT: 9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 10 11 12

5