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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 14th 4 day of April, two thousand fourteen.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

8 GERARD E. LYNCH,

9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _____________________________________

12

13 KWADJO AKYAW OSEI-WUSU, AKA ACHAW

14 OSEI-OWUSU,

15 Petitioner, 

16

17 v. 13-961

18 NAC 

19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

21 Respondent.

22 _______________________________________

23

24 FOR PETITIONER: Ryan E. Bausch, West Hartford, CT.

25

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney

27 General; Douglas E. Ginsburg,

28 Assistant Director; Matthew B.

29 George, Trial Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, United

2 States Department of Justice,

3 Washington, D.C.

4

5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

8 is DENIED.

9 Petitioner Kwadjo Akyaw Osei-Wusu, a native of Nigeria

10 and citizen of Ghana, seeks review of a February 19, 2013,

11 order of the BIA, affirming the September 19, 2011, decision

12 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied his motion to

13 reopen as untimely. In re Kwadjo Akyaw Osei-Wusu, No. A099

14 213 037 (B.I.A. Feb. 19, 2013), aff’g No. A099 213 037

15 (Immig. Ct. Hartford, CT Sept. 19, 2011). We assume the

16 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

17 procedural history in this case.

18 We review the BIA’s decision affirming an IJ’s denial

19 of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Iavorski v.

20 INS, 232 F.3d 124, 128 (2d Cir. 2000); see Ali v. Gonzales,

21 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). An alien

22 seeking to reopen proceedings is required to file a motion

23 to reopen no later than 90 days after the date on which the

24 final administrative decision was rendered. See 8 U.S.C. 

25 § 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is no

2
1 dispute that Osei-Wusu’s motion to reopen, filed in 2011,

2 was untimely because his order of removal became final in

3 2006. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B)(I). Osei-Wusu

4 contends, however, that his creation of a Facebook group

5 page critical of the Ghanaian government constitutes

6 materially changed country conditions excusing his motion

7 from the applicable time limitation. 

8 We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion

9 in denying Osei-Wusu’s motion for failure to demonstrate his

10 prima facie eligibility for relief. See Jian Hui Shao v.

11 Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168 (2d Cir. 2008) (recognizing that

12 an alien’s “ability to secure reopening depends on a

13 demonstration of prima facie eligibility for [relief], which

14 means she must show a ‘realistic chance’ that she will be

15 able to obtain such relief” (citations omitted)). The

16 agency reasonably determined that Osei-Wusu did not

17 demonstrate his prima facie eligibility for asylum and

18 withholding of removal because the State Department’s 2010

19 Human Rights Report contained no reports of internet

20 monitoring and indicated that Ghanaians were free to engage

21 in peaceful expression of views online. See Jian Xing Huang

22 v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 128-29 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that

3
1 absent solid support in the record for the petitioner’s

2 assertion that he would be persecuted, his fear was

3 “speculative at best”). The agency also properly noted that

4 Osei-Wusu had failed to present any evidence showing that

5 his Facebook group page was widely viewed. See Hongsheng

6 Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008) (“[T]o

7 establish a well-founded fear of persecution in the absence

8 of any evidence of past persecution, an alien must make some

9 showing that authorities in his country of nationality are

10 either aware of his activities or likely to become aware of

11 his activities.”). In addition, the agency reasonably

12 determined that Osei-Wusu had not demonstrated his prima

13 facie eligibility for adjustment of status because he

14 submitted no evidence showing that his wife was a United

15 States citizen or that he was the beneficiary of an approved

16 visa petition. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (listing eligibility

17 requirements for adjustment of status). 

18 Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying

19 Osei-Wusu’s motion for failure to demonstrate his prima

20 facie eligibility for relief, we decline to consider his

21 challenge to the agency’s alternative finding that country

22 conditions had not materially changed. See INS v.

4
1 Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule

2 courts and agencies are not required to make findings on

3 issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results

4 they reach.”). 

5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

6 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the stay of

7 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

8 is VACATED.

9 FOR THE COURT: 

10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

11

12

5