Jeremy Amin Nyuwa v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEREMY AMIN NYUWA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 09-70457
09-71483
Agency No. A078-231-145
MEMORANDUM*
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Jeremy Amin Nyuwa, a native and
citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order denying his motions to reopen and to reconsider. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denials
FILED
MAR 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-70457 2
of motions to reopen and to reconsider, and review de novo claims of due process
violations. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the
petitions for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Nyuwa’s motion to reopen
for failure to show prima facie eligibility for asylum. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538
F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (even assuming changed country conditions,
petitioner must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief in order to reopen
proceedings); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (a motion to reopen must be accompanied by
the appropriate application for relief and all supporting documentation).
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Nyuwa’s motion to
reconsider where the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s
prior decision denying the motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
It follows that Nyuwa’s due process claims fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a
due process claim).
Nyuwa’s contention that the BIA impermissibly allowed the immigration
judge’s adverse credibility determination to taint the adjudication of his motions to
reopen and reconsider is not supported by the record.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --