Court Opinion

ID: 9395443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-17 21:01:00.715865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:08.402829
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2344     Doc: 33        Filed: 05/16/2023    Pg: 1 of 15

                                          UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                             No. 21-2344

        BEATRICE NWUCHENG ANAGHO,

                           Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                           Respondent.

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

        Argued: January 24, 2023                                       Decided: May 16, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished opinion. Judge Quattlebaum wrote the opinion, in which
        Judge Niemeyer concurred. Judge Floyd wrote a dissent.

        ARGUED: Elsy Marleni Ramos Velasquez, CLARK HILL PLC, Washington, D.C., for
        Petitioner. Sanya Sarich Kerksiek, UNITED STATES DEPARMENT OF JUSTICE,
        Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Thomas K. Ragland, CLARK HILL
        PLC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant
        Attorney General, Jessica A. Dawgert, Senior Litigation Counsel, Elizabeth K. Ottman,
        Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
        JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2344      Doc: 33         Filed: 05/16/2023    Pg: 2 of 15

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2344      Doc: 33         Filed: 05/16/2023     Pg: 3 of 15

        QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge:

               Beatrice Nwucheng Anagho, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review

        of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying her motion to reopen her requests for

        asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture

        (“CAT”). The Board concluded that the new evidence she presented did not show

        materially changed country conditions that would affect her eligibility for relief and

        protection from removal. Because we find that the Board’s decision was not arbitrary,

        capricious or contrary to law, we deny Anagho’s petition for review.

                                                    I.

               Anagho arrived in the United States in 2003 on a B-2 visa. 1 Shortly after that, she

        applied for asylum and withholding of removal. The Department of Homeland Security

        issued Anagho a Notice to Appear, charging her as removable as a noncitizen who

        remained in the United States for longer than permitted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B).

        Anagho, through counsel, conceded the charge of removability and submitted an updated

        application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under CAT. Anagho

        claimed she had suffered past persecution and had a well-founded fear of future persecution

        from the Cameroonian government based on her activities with the Southern Cameroons

               1
                 B-2 visas are for nonimmigrants traveling to the United States temporarily for
        tourism. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(15)(B).

                                                    3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2344      Doc: 33         Filed: 05/16/2023      Pg: 4 of 15

        National Council (“SCNC”). In 2008, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) issued an adverse

        credibility finding and denied Anagho’s application. The Board affirmed in 2009.

               In 2012, Anagho first moved to reopen her proceedings. That motion was denied.

        In 2019, Anagho again moved to reopen her proceedings based on changed country

        conditions in Cameroon. The Board’s denial of that second motion is appealed here.

               An alien generally may file one motion to reopen within ninety days of a final order

        of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7). By statute, if a motion to reopen is based on changed

        country conditions, the ninety-day time limit does not apply. Id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). And

        by regulation, changed country conditions create an exception to limiting an alien to a

        single motion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). The Board often refers to this as the “changed

        country conditions exception” to the time and numerical limitations on motions to reopen,

        and we have previously recognized this exception. Wanrong Lin v. Holder, 771 F.3d 177,

        182 (4th Cir. 2014).

               As a second motion, filed years after the Board’s initial determination, Anagho’s

        motion to reopen was untimely and numerically barred in the absence of changed country

        conditions. And to satisfy the changed country conditions exception, she was required to

        establish that her evidence regarding changed country conditions “is material and was not

        available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.”

        A.R. 3–4 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii)). Notably, “[t]he

        petitioner carries a ‘heavy burden;’ he or she must show that the ‘new evidence offered

        would likely change the result in the case.’” Wanrong Lin, 771 F.3d at 183 (quoting In re

        Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992)).

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2344      Doc: 33         Filed: 05/16/2023      Pg: 5 of 15

               Anagho’s motion to reopen based on changed country conditions in Cameroon

        stated that:

               [O]ver the past several years, what used to be a simmering but largely quiet
               tension between two peoples—the Francophone majority and the
               Anglophone minority—that occasionally flared into violence has become a
               massive conflict in which, in the words of the Washington Post, ‘Hundreds
               have died, close to 500,000 have been displaced, and activists have been
               rounded up and jailed.’ The country is on ‘the brink of civil war.’

        A.R. 15 (internal citations omitted).

               As evidence of the changed country conditions, Anagho submitted 10 exhibits,

        including an expert report by Dr. Charlotte Walker-Said (“Walker-Said Report”) and the

        U.S. Department of State’s Cameroon Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for

        2018 (“2018 Human Rights Report”). Based on the developments in Cameroon, Anagho

        argued that she “has a well-founded fear 2 that Cameroonian authorities will persecute and

        torture her if she is removed to Cameroon because of her undisputed membership in the

        SCNC and her equally undisputed identity as an Anglophone.” A.R. 15.

               In analyzing Anagho’s motion, the Board stated that “[t]o determine whether the

        evidence accompanying [Anagho’s] motion demonstrates a material change in country

        conditions that would justify reopening, [it] compare[s] the evidence submitted with the

        motion with the country conditions that existed at the time of [Anagho’s] last hearing in

        2008.” A.R. 4 (citing Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007)). The Board

               2
                 An individual “may qualify as a refugee . . . [if] he or she has a well-founded fear
        of future persecution.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b).

                                                     5
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2344       Doc: 33         Filed: 05/16/2023    Pg: 6 of 15

        further stated that “incremental or incidental changes are insufficient to meet the changed

        country conditions exception.” A.R. 4. (citing Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 257).

               Based on this framework, the Board found that Anagho failed to satisfy the changed

        country conditions exception. For purposes of her motion, the Board accepted as true that

        she “is an Anglophone and current member of the SCNC who has participated in protests

        in the United States.” A.R. 4. It also noted that it does “not discount the extremely

        disturbing conditions in Cameroon.” A.R. 4. However, it ultimately held that the current

        “extremely disturbing conditions” did not represent a material change from the conditions

        that existed to threaten Anagho’s safety at the time of her 2008 hearing. A.R. 4.

               In coming to this conclusion, the Board compared evidence from the Walker-Said

        Report and the 2018 Human Rights Report with evidence from the U.S. Department of

        State’s Cameroon Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2006 (“2006 Human

        Rights Report”), which Anagho submitted at her initial hearing. It noted information from

        these sources about increased persecution and violence against all Anglophones and

        particularly those involved in political protests.

               However, in finding that the changes were not material, the Board explained that

        evidence showed that in 2006, “Cameroon’s human rights record remained poor, and that

        the government continued to commit numerous human rights abuses.” A.R. 5. Specifically,

        the 2006 Human Rights Report indicated that Cameroonian “authorities arbitrarily arrested

        and detained SCNC members and other Anglophone citizens advocating secession, local

        human rights monitors and activists, participants in unauthorized demonstrations, and other

        individuals perceived as government critics.” A.R. 5. Additionally, the 2006 Human Rights

                                                      6
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2344     Doc: 33         Filed: 05/16/2023      Pg: 7 of 15

        Report “indicated that the Cameroonian government restricted citizens’ freedoms of

        speech, press, assembly, and association.” A.R. 5. The Board also noted that the Walker-

        Said Report stated “that Anglophone citizens of Cameroon had been staging nonviolent

        protests and being harmed by the Cameroonian government as early as May 2007, and the

        Cameroonian authorities have long targeted Anglophone activists.” A.R. 5.

              With respect to Anagho’s specific situation, the Board concluded that:

              [T]he proffered evidence does not reflect that the government or any other
              person or organization in Cameroon has exhibited or expressed an interest in
              the respondent. Her past encounters with authorities were discounted in the
              [IJ’s] decision [due to the adverse credibility finding,] and therefore her
              current claim is based only on activities which have arisen since her departure
              from Cameroon. The respondent has not established that any threat to her
              safety in Cameroon has escalated since the time of her 2008 merits hearing
              such that reopening based on changed country conditions is warranted.

        A.R. 5.

              Anagho timely petitioned for us to review the Board’s denial of her motion to

        reopen. We have jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

                                                    II.

              Our standard of review places a heavy burden on a petitioner who wishes us to

        overturn the denial of a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions. We review

        such denials for abuse of discretion. Garcia Hernandez v. Garland, 27 F.4th 263, 266 (4th

        Cir. 2022). As such, we grant a petition only if the Board’s decision is “arbitrary,

        capricious, or contrary to law.” Id. at 266. The Board’s “denial of a motion to reopen is

        reviewed with extreme deference, given that motions to reopen are disfavored because

                                                    7
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2344         Doc: 33       Filed: 05/16/2023     Pg: 8 of 15

        every delay works to the advantage of the deportable [non-citizen] who wishes merely to

        remain in the United States.” Sadhvani v. Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 2009)

        (internal quotation marks omitted). “Even so . . . the BIA abuses its discretion when it fails

        to offer a reasoned explanation for its decision, distorts or disregards important aspects of

        the alien’s claim.” Nken v. Holder, 585 F.3d 818, 821 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Hussain v.

        Gonzales, 477 F.3d 153, 155 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

                                                     III.

               Anagho argues that the Board abused its discretion because its decision “defies the

        reality on the ground in Cameroon.” Pet.’s Op. Br. 6. She argues that the country conditions

        report and expert testimony she submitted show a “profound escalation in violence.” Id. at

        7. As evidence that the Board abused its discretion, Anagho cites a recent unpublished

        Board decision that granted a motion to reopen with a similar procedural history and was

        “filed by a Cameroonian respondent who alleged that country conditions had materially

        changed.” Id. at 9.

               In response, the Attorney General argues that the Board properly compared the

        evidence presented in Anagho’s motion to reopen with the country conditions evidence she

        presented at the time of her first removal hearing and “provided a detailed, reasonable

        explanation as to why it did not find conditions were materially altered.” Resp. Br. 11.

        According to the Attorney General, the evidence presented in Anagho’s motion to reopen

        is “largely cumulative” of the original evidence: “similar abhorrent acts” to those described

        in the motion to reopen were regularly occurring in Cameroon at the time of Anagho’s first

                                                      8
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2344      Doc: 33         Filed: 05/16/2023      Pg: 9 of 15

        proceeding. Id. And with respect to Anagho’s citation of the recent Board decision granting

        a motion to reopen under similar circumstances, the Attorney General highlights that

        unpublished decisions by the Board are not binding precedent and that the “Board is

        required to consider every case on its own merits based on the specific evidence

        submitted.” Resp. Br. 26 (citing Matter of Vazquez, 25 I. & N. Dec. 817, 822 n.5 (B.I.A.

        2012); Matter of Gomez-Gomez, 23 I. & N. Dec. 522, 525 (B.I.A. 2002)). The Attorney

        General also points out that in the case relied upon by Anagho, “the Board relied upon new

        evidence that the Cameroonian government was actively targeting the movant’s family

        members ‘to discourage [him] from continuing his anti-government political activities in

        the United States.’” Resp. Br. 26–27. In contrast, Anagho has presented no evidence that

        the government “exhibited or expressed any interest in” her. Resp. Br. 27 (citing A.R. 5).

               Considering both parties’ arguments and the record, we conclude the Board did not

        act in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law in finding that Anagho

        “has not established that any threat to her safety in Cameroon has escalated since the time

        of her 2008 merits hearing such that reopening based on changed country conditions is

        warranted.” A.R. 5. While there is evidence from which the Board could have concluded

        the conditions have sufficiently changed, there was also evidence in the record indicating

        that Anagho failed to establish that country conditions in Cameroon “were materially

        different from those conditions at the time of [her] original removal proceedings.” See

        Wanrong Lin, 771 F.3d at 185 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii)). And when the BIA

        catalogues a petitioner’s submissions, evaluates the evidence and explains why the

        evidence fails to meet the heavy burden, its decision “falls far short of arbitrariness.” Id.

                                                     9
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2344     Doc: 33         Filed: 05/16/2023    Pg: 10 of 15

        So, regardless of the determination we would have reached were we sitting in the Board’s

        shoes, under our standard of review, we must deny Anagho’s petition.

                                                                              PETITION DENIED

                                                  10
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2344       Doc: 33         Filed: 05/16/2023    Pg: 11 of 15

        FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge, dissenting:

               The outcome here turns on whether the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “Board”)

        abused its discretion by concluding that Petitioner Beatrice Anagho failed to present

        evidence of materially changed country conditions within Cameroon sufficient to justify

        reopening her immigration proceedings. My fine colleagues in the majority conclude that

        the Board “did not act in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law in

        finding that Anagho ‘has not established that any threat to her safety in Cameroon has

        escalated since the time of her 2008 merits hearing such that reopening based on changed

        country conditions is warranted.’” Majority Op. 9 (quoting Administrative Record (A.R.)

        5). But I cannot share that view.

               The majority and I agree that the Cameroonian government had a poor human-rights

        record in 2008 and often perpetrated abuses—Anagho’s evidence at her merits hearing

        illustrated as much. To be sure, the country-conditions evidence that she subsequently

        presented at the reopening stage in 2019 did not necessarily illustrate a change in kind.

        Instead of portraying novel categories of violent acts, it depicted profound exacerbation of

        existing violence. This change in the degree of violence in Cameroon is no less than

        staggering. The only rational conclusion that may be drawn from Anagho’s reopening

        evidence is that country conditions today are materially different than they were in 2008.

        The Board’s contrary conclusion, to my mind, defies commonsense and compels remand.

        Thus, I respectfully dissent.

                                                    11
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2344      Doc: 33         Filed: 05/16/2023      Pg: 12 of 15

                                                    I.

               As the majority correctly conveys, we review the denial of a motion to reopen for

        abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552

        F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2022) (discussing reopening of a

        case before the Board). The Board abuses its discretion if the decision is “arbitrary,

        irrational, or contrary to law.” Wanrong Lin v. Holder, 771 F.3d 177, 182 (4th Cir. 2014)

        (simplified). 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 [noncitizen] who wishes merely to remain in the United

        States.” Sadhvani v. Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 2009) (simplified). But, even

        amidst this deferential standard, the Board unquestionably “abuses its discretion when it

        fails to offer a reasoned explanation for its decision, [or] distorts or disregards important

        aspects of [a noncitizen’s] claim.” Nken v. Holder, 585 F.3d 818, 821 (4th Cir. 2009)

        (simplified).

               If a motion to reopen is based on changed country conditions, the noncitizen must

        show that current conditions are materially different from those that existed at the time of

        the original removal proceeding. See Lin, 771 F.3d at 185, 188. At least one of our sister

        circuits has denied relief when a noncitizen’s evidence portrays no more than an

        “incremental change,” rather than “a significant shift in country conditions from those that

        existed” previously. Inestroza-Antonelli v. Barr, 954 F.3d 813, 817 (5th Cir. 2020). The

        noncitizen thus “carries a heavy burden” and “must show that the new evidence offered”

                                                     12
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2344      Doc: 33          Filed: 05/16/2023     Pg: 13 of 15

        is not only relevant but “would likely change the result in the case.” Lin, 771 F.3d at 183

        (simplified).

                                                    II.

               The previously unavailable evidence that Anagho presented at the reopening stage

        sufficiently portrays a material shift in country conditions from those that existed in 2008.

        Rather, the record at reopening is replete with evidence portraying just how dire the

        situation in Cameroon has become in the time since Anagho’s merits hearing. The Board’s

        contrary conclusion that conditions remained materially unchanged defies rationality, and

        thus constitutes an abuse of discretion.

               I plainly acknowledge that the State Department’s 2005 and 2006 reports—

        available at the time of Anagho’s 2008 removal hearing—portrayed a situation in which

        the predominantly Francophone Cameroonian government persecuted Anglophone

        activists. But the Department’s 2018 report starkly contrasts with the mere unrest and

        miscellaneous abuses described a decade earlier. Instead, the 2018 report states that “[t]he

        sociopolitical crisis that began in the Northwest and Southwest Regions in late 2016 over

        perceived marginalization developed into an armed conflict between government forces

        and separatist groups. The conflict resulted in serious human rights violations and abuses

        by government forces and Anglophone separatists.” A.R. 198. The State Department’s

        reports from 2005 and 2006 do not describe the same degree of violence between the

        competing groups, nor do they describe the situation as a crisis. Amnesty International also

        recognizes a crisis beginning in 2016 with the failure of various institutions within

                                                     13
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2344      Doc: 33         Filed: 05/16/2023     Pg: 14 of 15

        Cameroon and the government’s excessive use of deadly force against separatists. See, e.g.,

        A.R. 324–26.

               In 2019, the Washington Post reported that over 500,000 people had been displaced

        by the conflict in the two years prior, and that Cameroon was on “the brink of civil war.”

        A.R. 750. Similarly, Anagho’s expert states that the number of Anglophone Cameroonians

        fleeing to Nigeria increased from 7,500 between October 2016 through 2017 to 35,000 in

        2019. A.R. 168. The United Nations executed an Emergency Response Plan, endeavoring

        to provide shelter and other relief to displaced persons and refugees. A.R. 220. The only

        reasonable conclusion that we may draw from the fact of this exodus is that the very nature

        of the conflict fundamentally changed in the last decade—newly expanding victimization

        beyond the spheres of high-ranking activists to now include the greater populous of the

        Anglophone minority.

               The government’s contention that any change in conditions is immaterial and

        instead represents only a marginal deterioration of the situation in Cameroon is

        unpersuasive. To be sure, at the time of Anagho’s initial merits hearing, the evidence that

        she presented conveyed tensions between the Southern Cameroon National Council

        (SCNC)—an Anglophone advocacy group—and the government. But mere tensions and

        the targeted persecution of particularly zealous Anglophone activists is simply

        incomparable to a quasi-civil war displacing hundreds of thousands of innocents. Thus, the

        totality of the evidence compels the finding of a material change in country conditions

        since Anagho’s hearing in 2008.

                                                    14
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2344       Doc: 33         Filed: 05/16/2023    Pg: 15 of 15

               Having met her burden of demonstrating materially changed conditions, Anagho

        “must [also] show that the new evidence offered” is not only relevant but “would likely

        change the result in [her] case.” Lin, 771 F.3d at 183 (simplified). The Board found that

        Anagho did not credibly recount the details of her past encounters with the Cameroonian

        government or the extent of her involvement in the SCNC. But it is undisputed that Anagho

        is an Anglophone Cameroonian, and that she is a member of the SCNC—regardless of

        lesser or greater participation in the group.

               Given that the situation in Cameroon has evolved into a crisis that impacts not only

        high-ranking SCNC members but also lesser members and even Anglophones generally, a

        changed result in Anagho’s case is likely. Consequently, remand for consideration of

        Anagho’s asylum eligibility in light of the current state of Cameroon seems the appropriate

        path forward. I respectfully dissent.

                                                        15