Case Name: Samuel NYANSASERIA, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-31
Citations: 589 F. App'x 255
Docket Number: No. 14-60026
Parties: Samuel NYANSASERIA, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 589
Pages: 255–256

Head Matter:
Samuel NYANSASERIA, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-60026
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 31, 2014.
Harvey A. Schein, Schein Calixto Stevens, P.L.L.C., Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
Elizabeth Robyn Chapman, Trial Attorney, Tangerlia Cox, Claire L. Workman, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Nyansaseria, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of the 12 December 2018 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge's 9 November 2011 denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings (he was granted voluntary departure in March 2010). The denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed under "a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard". Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir.2009) (citation omitted).
Nyansaseria failed to move to reopen his removal proceedings within 90 days of the BIA's final order of removal, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1). His challenge necessarily relies on the exceptions to the filing deadline, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4), but he fails, for example, to claim the conditions in Kenya have changed or that the voluntary-departure order was entered in absentia. His summary assertion of "change of circumstances" fails. Because he provides no other bases supporting an exception, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his appeal.
DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.