Mukasa v. Mukasey

First Circuit

Mukasa v. Mukasey

322 F. App'x 3

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedApril 23, 2009

Docket08-1875

StatusPublished

This text of 322 F. App'x 3 (Mukasa v. Mukasey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mukasa v. Mukasey, 322 F. App'x 3 (1st Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

FARRIS, Circuit Judge.

Susan Mukasa, a native and citizen of Uganda, petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. Mukasa entered the United States on December 25, 2000 using a false passport.

She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, all of which were denied. In moving to reopen, Mukasa asserted changed country conditions and offered additional evidence.

We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Guerrero-Pantana v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 90, 92 (1st Cir.2007). Under this standard, the Board’s decision will stand unless the petitioner can show that it rests on an error of law or that it is patently arbitrary. Id. at 93.

We have carefully reviewed the record along with Mukasa’s new allegations. She fails to challenge the adverse credibility finding. Her motion to reopen does nothing to rehabilitate the finding that her testimony was not credible, nor does it present a distinct new claim.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FARRIS, Circuit Judge.

Susan Mukasa, a native and citizen of Uganda, petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. Mukasa entered the United States on December 25, 2000 using a false passport.

She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, all of which were denied. In moving to reopen, Mukasa asserted changed country conditions and offered additional evidence.

We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Guerrero-Pantana v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 90, 92 (1st Cir.2007). Under this standard, the Board’s decision will stand unless the petitioner can show that it rests on an error of law or that it is patently arbitrary. Id. at 93.

We have carefully reviewed the record along with Mukasa’s new allegations. She fails to challenge the adverse credibility finding. Her motion to reopen does nothing to rehabilitate the finding that her testimony was not credible, nor does it present a distinct new claim.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

322 F. App'x 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mukasa-v-mukasey-ca1-2009.