Jean Moune v. U.s. Immigration & Naturalization Service

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1186
JEAN MOUNE,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A72-352-497)
Submitted: June 17, 2002 Decided: July 16, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bokwe G. Mofor, IMMIGRATION ASSISTANCE CENTER, INC., Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant
Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, James A.
Hunolt, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jean Moune, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for
review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings based on new
evidence and a claim for protection under the United Nations
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment.
Moune contends the Board abused its discretion in finding that
he failed to present material evidence that was not available and
could not have been discovered or presented at the deportation
hearing. Moune further contends the Board abused its discretion in
finding that he failed to establish a prima facie case that it is
more likely than not that he would suffer torture if returned to
Cameroon. See Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999);
8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) (2001). We have reviewed the
administrative record and the Board’s decision and find no abuse of
discretion in its denial of the motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.18(b)(2)(ii).
Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s denial of relief. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --