Ruling that the BIA correctly denied Petitioner's motion to reopen on the basis of reinvigorating her previous claim of past persecution and asserting an individualized fear of future persecution, but that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to address Petitioner's new "pattern or practice" argument and new Cameroonian country conditions evidence indicating increased violence against Anglophones.
Motions to Reopen
Holding that, although the BIA failed to consider materially changed country conditions, namely the worsening oppression of Chinese Christians, the BIA did not err when it denied Petitioners' second motion to reopen because Petitioners did not establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding, or protection under CAT.
Holding that (1) Petitioner's Tennessee conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of Tenn. Code § 39-17-417, constitutes both an aggravated felony and a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) and Court thus lacked jurisdiction to review BIA's denial of Petitioner's motion to reopen, (2) Petitioner was ineligible for § 212(c) waiver because one of the CIMT convictions that rendered him removable occurred after the repeal of § 212(c), and (3) Petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal for LPRs due to aggravated felony conviction.
Holding that (1) the fact that Notice to Appear did not provide time and date of hearing did not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction over Petitioner's proceedings and (2) Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner's motion to reopen based on eligibility for VAWA relief because Petitioner failed to establish that alleged battery was a central reason for his failure to comply with terms of voluntary departure.
Holding that the Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying (1) Petitioner's motion to reconsider the conclusion that Petitioner had abandoned her status as a lawful permanent resident based on her extended trips to her home country and (2) Petitioner's motion to reopen because the evidence Petitioner sought to present could have been previously presented and would not have changed the outcome of the case.