Olukune v. Attorney General of United States, 050608 FED3, 07-1264

Docket Nº:07-1264
Opinion Judge:FISHER, Circuit Judge.
Party Name:AZIBETTER KAGONYA OLUKUNE, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondent
Judge Panel:Before: FISHER, GREENBERG and ROTH, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:May 06, 2008
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

AZIBETTER KAGONYA OLUKUNE, Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondent

No. 07-1264

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

May 6, 2008

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 6, 2008

On Petition for Review from an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board No. A95-850-637) Immigration Judge: Rosalind K. Malloy

Before: FISHER, GREENBERG and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

FISHER, Circuit Judge.

Azibetter Kagonya Olukune ("Petitioner") seeks review of the final decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") ordering her removal from the United States. For the reasons set forth below, we will deny the petition.

I.

We write exclusively for the parties, who are familiar with the factual context and legal history of this case. Therefore, we will set forth only those facts necessary to our analysis.

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Kenya, filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioner alleged that she feared for her life because of her political involvement in Kenya with a group called Forum for Restoration and Development ("FORD"). FORD opposed the perceived corruption of the ruling party at the time, the Kenyan African National Union ("KANU"). Petitioner alleges that she was attacked by KANU sympathizers. At her hearing, Petitioner admitted that since she had been in the United States, KANU had left power and FORD had become part of the new governing coalition. On August 11, 2004, the Immigration Judge ("IJ") denied her claims. On October 14, 2005, the BIA affirmed the IJ's decision without opinion.

On August 21, 2006, Petitioner moved to reopen before the BIA based on changed country conditions in Kenya. On October 17, 2006, the BIA denied this motion for having been "filed out of time." The BIA stated that the motion did not fit into any exception to the timeliness requirements because Petitioner had not shown why the evidence she had presented had not been available to her earlier, and moreover, the evidence did not show that country conditions in Kenya had changed for the worse.

On November 16, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion styled "Motion For Reconsideration and Request For Stay of Deportation." This motion asked for "reconsideration" by the BIA of its October 17, 2006 denial of her motion...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP