Angeline Carole Nono Mbukam v. U.S. Attorney General, 707 F. App'x 668

Nono, a Cameroonian national, entered the U.S. on a student visa in 2004, overstayed, and applied for asylum, withholding, and CAT protection alleging persecution including a forced female circumcision.
An asylum officer found her not credible and referred her to removal proceedings; the IJ in 2007 denied asylum, found the application frivolous (noting a fraudulent newspaper article), and ordered removal.
The BIA affirmed in 2008; Nono moved to reopen in 2008 alleging ineffective assistance and contesting credibility findings. In 2009 the BIA granted reopening in part, vacated the 2008 decision, and remanded to the IJ to reassess credibility under pre-REAL ID Act standards and resolve translation/record issues.
On remand, Nono pursued an I-130 and adjustment of status; in 2015 the IJ again found her asylum application frivolous (citing deliberate fabrication and the fraudulent article) and pretermitted adjustment of status, barring future INA benefits. The BIA affirmed in 2016.
Nono filed a 2016 motion to reconsider/reopen the BIA’s 2016 decision, arguing the prior remand meant no final frivolous finding barred adjustment; the BIA denied the motion in 2017. Nono petitioned for review in the Eleventh Circuit, which denied the petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen	Nono argued she presented new grounds and that the BIA misread her claim about finality after the 2009 remand	BIA argued Nono offered no new, material evidence and failed statutory reopening requirements	Denied — no new material evidence; BIA did not abuse discretion
Whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying a motion to reconsider (finality of prior frivolous finding)	Nono argued that vacatur/remand in 2009 meant the earlier frivolous finding was not final and thus could not bar adjustment on remand	BIA pointed to IJ’s new frivolous finding on remand and Matter of X‑M‑C‑ authority allowing pretermission of adjustment despite withdrawal	Denied — motion merely rehashed prior arguments; IJ validly found frivolousness on remand, pretermitting adjustment
Reliance on unpublished BIA decision to support non‑finality argument	Nono cited an unpublished, factually similar BIA ruling to show the frivolousness bar did not apply after remand	BIA and court said unpublished decisions lack precedential value and the cited decision was factually distinguishable	Denied — unpublished decision not controlling and materially different facts

Ferreira v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 714 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2013) (standard for BIA abuse of discretion in motions to reconsider)
Zhang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2009) (standard for review of BIA denial of motions to reopen)
De la Rosa v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 579 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2009) (unpublished BIA decisions have no precedential value)
Verano‑Velasco v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 456 F.3d 1372 (11th Cir. 2006) (requirements for granting motions to reopen: new, material, previously unavailable evidence)
Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 2005) (issues not argued on appeal are abandoned)
Calle v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007) (reconsideration that merely repeats rejected arguments is inadequate)
Butka v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 827 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2016) (limits on circuit jurisdiction over BIA’s sua sponte reopening denials)