NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 20-1441 ______________ RITA ONYEKONWU, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A077-027-423) Immigration Judge: Arya S. Ranasinghe ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) December 15, 2020 ______________ Before: GREENAWAY, JR., SHWARTZ, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. (Filed: January 11, 2021) ______________ OPINION ______________ SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge. This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. Rita Onyekonwu petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying Onyekonwu’s third motion to reopen and rescind her 2003 in absentia removal order. Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion, we will dismiss in part and deny in part the petition. I Onyekonwu is a citizen of Nigeria who has lived in the United States since 1979. In 1997, Onyekonwu married a United States citizen and filed to adjust her status to legal permanent resident. However, Onyekonwu’s spouse subsequently withdrew his support for her petition and stated that they married fraudulently for immigration purposes. Thereafter, Onyekonwu was placed in removal proceedings, and she retained pro bono counsel, Joyce Phipps, to represent her. Onyekonwu filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), alleging a fear of persecution in Nigeria under Sharia law because she had a child out of wedlock. However, both Onyekonwu and Phipps failed to appear for a July 2, 2003 hearing before an IJ, and Onyekonwu was ordered removed in absentia. In 2010, Onyekonwu, still represented by Phipps, filed her first motion to reopen, claiming that she was unable to attend the July 2003 hearing due to her and her son’s medical conditions. The IJ denied the motion because it did not include a sworn statement from Onyekonwu explaining why she failed to appear for her hearing. In 2018, Onyekonwu retained new counsel, Alina Kaganovsky, who filed a second motion to reopen—this time contending that Onyekonwu was eligible for asylum based 2 on changed country conditions in Nigeria. Specifically, Onyekonwu asserted that violence towards Christians was escalating in Nigeria, and that she feared persecution as a devout Christian and minister. The IJ denied this motion because it was numerically barred and untimely, lacked a sworn statement from Onyekonwu, and failed to establish changed country conditions. Onyekonwu did not appeal, and she now contends that Kaganovsky never told her that she could. In 2019, Onyekonwu retained her present counsel, and she filed her third motion to reopen, arguing that rescission of the removal order was appropriate because her previous attorneys had provided ineffective assistance of counsel.1 Specifically, Onyekonwu alleged that (1) Phipps was ineffective for misinforming Onyekonwu of the date of the hearing, as allegedly corroborated by a “recently discovered” copy of a telephone message that she left for Phipps in ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals