Court Opinion

ID: 9352476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-06 18:00:53.771961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:03:26.643813
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-9509    Document: 010110793946       Date Filed: 01/06/2023     Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          January 6, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                           Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                               Clerk of Court
  ALY ISSAC FOFANA,

        Petitioner,

  v.                                                         No. 22-9509
                                                         (Petition for Review)
  MERRICK B. GARLAND,
  United States Attorney General,

        Respondent.
                          _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       Aly Issac Fofana, a native and citizen of Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast), petitions

 for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his

 motion to reconsider and his request to hold the motion in abeyance. Exercising

 jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), we deny the petition for review.

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
 estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-9509    Document: 010110793946        Date Filed: 01/06/2023     Page: 2

                                   BACKGROUND

       After filing an asylum application, Mr. Fofana was able to pursue adjustment

 of status through his United States-citizen spouse. When he arrived for his hearing

 before an immigration judge (IJ), he withdrew his asylum application. However, the

 IJ determined that the asylum application was frivolous and thus barred him from

 receiving any benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act. See 8 U.S.C.

 § 1158(d)(6). The IJ therefore denied Mr. Fofana’s application for adjustment of

 status and ordered him removed. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision.

       Mr. Fofana filed a motion to reconsider. He argued that because he withdrew

 the asylum application, he was entitled to the benefit of 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20(f).

 Section 1208.20(f) sets forth four conditions that, if met, preclude the agency from

 finding a withdrawn asylum application frivolous:

       (1) The alien wholly disclaims the application and withdraws it with
       prejudice;

       (2) The alien is eligible for and agrees to accept voluntary departure for
       a period of no more than 30 days pursuant to section 240B(a) of the
       [Immigration and Nationality] Act;

       (3) The alien withdraws any and all other applications for relief or
       protection with prejudice; and

       (4) The alien waives his right to appeal and any rights to file, for any
       reason, a motion to reopen or reconsider.

 The government opposed the motion, stating that a federal district court had

 preliminarily enjoined § 1208.20 from going into effect. See Pangea Legal Servs. v.

 U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 512 F. Supp. 3d 966, 977 (N.D. Cal. 2021).

                                            2
Appellate Case: 22-9509     Document: 010110793946         Date Filed: 01/06/2023   Page: 3

 Mr. Fofana then requested that the BIA hold the proceeding in abeyance pending the

 resolution of Pangea Legal Services.

        The BIA denied both the motion to reconsider and the request to hold the

 matter in abeyance, stating, “the regulation cited by the respondent was subject to a

 preliminary injunction as of January 8, 2021 (prior to the date it would have taken

 effect), is still enjoined, was never applicable to the respondent’s case, and is not

 now applicable to his case.” Admin. R. at 3. The BIA further stated that Mr. Fofana

 “does not explain how his particular situation would meet the requirements of the

 regulation at issue since his Immigration Court hearing was 2 years before the

 regulation was to take effect and in light of the regulation’s requirements.” Id. at 3-4.

 After quoting the four conditions of § 1208.20(f), it found that Mr. Fofana had “not

 established that he agreed at his hearing to withdraw his application for adjustment of

 status and seek voluntary departure for a period of 30 days or less and also waived

 his right to appeal and his right to file a motion.” Id. at 4.

        Mr. Fofana now petitions for review.

                                      DISCUSSION

        We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider.

 See Berdiev v. Garland, 13 F.4th 1125, 1130 (10th Cir. 2021). We also review for

 abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a request for abeyance. See Cabral v. Holder,

 632 F.3d 886, 889 (5th Cir. 2011). “The BIA abuses its discretion when its decision

 provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, is

                                              3
Appellate Case: 22-9509     Document: 010110793946        Date Filed: 01/06/2023     Page: 4

 devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements.”

 Berdiev, 13 F.4th at 1130-31 (internal quotation marks omitted).

        Mr. Fofana argues that the BIA abused its discretion because it “failed to

 provide a reasoned explanation of its decision. One is unable to determine from the

 BIA’s language and mere citation to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20(f) on which . . . grounds the

 BIA relied to deny Petitioner’s motion to reconsider for abeyance.” Pet’r’s Opening

 Br. at 23. “This Court cannot perform a meaningful review where the [BIA] does not

 sufficiently articulate its reasoning.” Id. at 25.

        This contention is meritless. Although its decision is concise, the BIA gave

 several reasons for concluding that Mr. Fofana was not entitled to relief under

 § 1208.20(f): (1) the regulation was preliminarily enjoined and had never gone into

 effect; (2) Mr. Fofana’s case was before the IJ two years before the regulation’s

 proposed effective date; and (3) Mr. Fofana had failed to demonstrate that he could

 satisfy all of the regulation’s requirements. This discussion more than satisfied the

 BIA’s obligation to provide a “rational explanation” to support its decision. “There

 is no abuse of discretion when the BIA’s rationale is clear, there is no departure from

 established policies, and its statements are a correct interpretation of the law, even

 when the BIA’s decision is succinct.” Rodas-Orellana v. Holder, 780 F.3d 982, 990

 (10th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

        Mr. Fofana accuses the BIA of “disingenuously maintain[ing] that the

 Petitioner did not address how the outcome of the Pangea matter would apply to his

 case.” Pet’r’s Opening Br. at 24. But the BIA did not err in determining that

                                              4
Appellate Case: 22-9509    Document: 010110793946         Date Filed: 01/06/2023       Page: 5

 Mr. Fofana’s appeal brief failed to establish that he meets all four requirements of

 § 1208.20(f). And in any event, he ignores the BIA’s point that the IJ heard his case

 before § 1208.20’s effective date. Under § 1208.20(a)(2), “[p]aragraphs (b) through

 (f) shall only apply to applications filed on or after January 11, 2021,” and it is

 undisputed that Mr. Fofana filed his asylum application in 2011. Given that

 Mr. Fofana could never receive relief under § 1208.20(f) even if the Pangea Legal

 Services injunction were to be dissolved, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in

 declining to hold the motion in abeyance pending the resolution of that case.

                                     CONCLUSION

       The petition for review is denied.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Joel M. Carson III
                                              Circuit Judge

                                             5