Camillus Ehigie v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CAMILLUS EHIGIE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73753
Agency No. A070-103-916
CAMILLUS EHIGIE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72039
Agency No. A070-103-916
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
FILED
MAR 25 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

Submitted March 11, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, McKEOWN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Camillus Ehigie, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of two
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) orders denying as untimely and number-
barred his third and fourth motions to reopen removal proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing the BIA’s orders for an abuse of
discretion, see Oyeniran v. Holder, 672 F.3d 800, 806 (9th Cir. 2012), we deny
both petitions for review.
The crux of Ehigie’s argument, in both No. 09-73753 and No. 11-72039, is
that removal proceedings should be reopened to allow him to apply for asylum,
withholding, and relief under the Convention Against Torture in light of what he
alleges are recently changed conditions in Nigeria that make him, as a Christian,
subject to religious persecution. The BIA twice rejected this argument on the
theory that conditions in Nigeria have remained largely the same since 2003.
Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding to that effect, the
BIA did not abuse its discretion in either order. Neither Ehigie’s third motion to
reopen, nor his fourth, presents sufficient evidence of changed conditions in
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Nigeria to qualify him for the regulatory exception to the time and number
limitations for filing such motions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).1
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
1 Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding in both No. 09-
73753 and No. 11-72039 that Ehigie did not introduce previously unavailable,
material evidence of changed conditions in Nigeria, we need not reach any other
issue. See id. § 1003.2(a).
3

-- 3 of 3 --