Jeremy Amin Nyuwa v. FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Portland Oregon;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEREMY AMIN NYUWA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, Portland Oregon;
et al.,
Respondents-Appellees.
Nos. 16-35099
15-35810
D.C. No. 3:13-cv-01275-BR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Jeremy Amin Nyuwa, a native and citizen of
Nigeria, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action
appealing from the Administrative Appeals Office’s order dismissing his appeal
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-35099
from Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s determination that he had breached
his immigration delivery bond, and the district court’s decision declining to disturb
the grant of summary judgment on reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion for summary
judgment and review for abuse of discretion a motion for reconsideration. Smith v.
Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment, where Nyuwa failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the determination that he had
breached his bond. The bond agreement was conditioned upon Nyuwa’s
appearance “upon each and every written request,” a written request for his
presence was made, and he failed to appear when and where requested. See 8
C.F.R. § 103.6(e) (“A bond is breached when there has been a substantial violation
of the stipulated conditions.”); accord Ruiz-Rivera v. Moyer, 70 F.3d 498, 501 (7th
Cir. 1995) (the primary objective of a delivery bond is to produce the alien
whenever and wherever requested by the agency). Accordingly, the district court
did not abuse its discretion in declining to disturb its decision on reconsideration.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --