TAKANG v. BARR

Holding that BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner's second motion to reopen because Petitioner failed to submit a concurrent asylum application demonstrating changed circumstances, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1), and rejecting Petitioner's procedural due process argument because denying Petitioner discretionary relief did not deprive her of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest. 

Date of Decision
Unpublished