Yacoub Quomsieh v. Michael B. Mukasey , 274 F. App'x 497 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 07-2279
    ___________
    Yacoub Quomsieh; Muna Quomsieh;      *
    Hanin Quomsieh; Nadeen Quomsieh;     *
    Balquees Quomsieh; Jeries Quomsieh;  *
    Danial Quomsieh,                     *
    *
    Petitioners,            *
    *      Petition for Review from the
    v.                            *      Board of Immigration Appeals.
    *
    *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General *
    of the United States of America,     *
    *
    Respondent.             *
    ___________
    Submitted: April 14, 2008
    Filed: April 18, 2008
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Yacoub Quomsieh and his family, Palestinian Christians from the West Bank,
    seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their
    motion to reopen their removal proceedings. They contend that changed
    circumstances—that the Hamas organization has taken over control of the Palestinian
    Authority—warrant the grant of an untimely motion to reopen. We deny the petition
    for review.
    The Quomsiehs entered the United States in 2001, and, in January 2002, they
    filed their petitions for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
    Convention Against Torture. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied their petitions, and
    the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. A panel of this court denied the Quomsiehs’
    petitions for review in March 2007. See Quomsieh v. Gonzales, 
    479 F.3d 602
     (8th
    Cir. 2007).
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Quomsiehs failed to
    establish changed circumstances which would justify reopening the removal
    proceedings. Alemu v. Mukasey, 
    509 F.3d 907
    , 909 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of
    review). “[M]otions to reopen are disfavored because they undermine the
    government’s legitimate interest in finality . . . .” 
    Id.
     Thus, the Attorney General
    retains considerable discretion over such motions, and that discretion is abused only
    where the BIA “gives no rational explanation for its decision; departs from its
    established policies without explanation; relies on impermissible factors or legal error;
    or ignores or distorts the record evidence.” 
    Id.
     (citations omitted).
    The evidence the Quomsiehs submitted with their motion includes articles
    discussing the Hamas takeover of the Palestinian Authority. In reviewing this
    evidence and a State Department report on the status of religious relations in Israel
    and the Occupied Territories, the BIA concluded that while there were “tensions
    between Christians and Muslims . . . the new Palestinian Authority (PA) government
    ha[d] taken steps to eliminate religious incitement.” This finding is a reasonable
    interpretation of the evidence presented by the Quomsiehs and from the State
    Department report, and the evidence does not show that the territory has undergone
    a material change in circumstances.
    Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-2279

Citation Numbers: 274 F. App'x 497

Filed Date: 4/18/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023