Zouwera Salifou v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1000
ZOUWERA SALIFOU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 9, 2013 Decided: July 17, 2013
Before AGEE, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sandra Greene, GREENE FITZGERALD ADVOCATES & CONSULTANTS, York,
Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant
Director, Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Zouwera Salifou, a native and citizen of Togo,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of Salifou’s request to renew her applications
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. The Board’s order also denied
Salifou’s motion to remand.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the
prior decisions of the immigration court and the Board,
Salifou’s motions to reopen and remand, and the supporting
evidence, and conclude that the record evidence does not compel
a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). We have also reviewed the
denial of Salifou’s motion to remand and find no abuse of
discretion. See Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir.
1998) (setting forth standard of review).
Although we review legal issues de novo, see Li Fang
Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008), we find no
support for Salifou’s contention that she was entitled to a
remand under Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1 (2008), for a factual
assessment as to her continued interest in voluntary departure
following the filing of her motion to remand. We further
discern no error in the agency’s conclusion that review, upon

-- 2 of 3 --

3
reopening, was limited to Salifou’s eligibility for voluntary
departure. See Jungming Li v. Holder, 656 F.3d 898, 904 n.1
(9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that nothing in Matter of M-D-, 24
I. & N. Dec. 138, 141 (B.I.A. 2007), “suggests that a petitioner
could use the remand as a venue to challenge orders denying
relief that the [Board] has affirmed” and clarifying that the
case merely recognizes the immigration judge’s authority to
consider new evidence if it would support a motion to reopen the
proceedings). Finally, we conclude that the Board properly
declined to reinstate Salifou’s grant of voluntary departure
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(3)(ii) (2013).
We therefore deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Salifou (B.I.A. Nov.
30, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --