Decision date: 2020-01-03

Holding that BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner's second motion to reopen because Petitioner failed to submit a concurrent asylum application demonstrating changed circumstances, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1), and rejecting Petitioner's procedural due process argument because denying Petitioner discretionary relief did not deprive her of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest. 

Publication Status: Unpublished

Case judge: Agee, Quattlebaum, Traxler

Decision: Takang v. Barr, 795 F. App'x 893 (4th Cir. 2020) (No. 18-2162)