Beatrice Akinyi Rajwayi v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BEATRICE AKINYI RAJWAYI,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70945
Agency No. A099-869-550
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 9, 2021
San Francisco, California
Before: BERZON, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Beatrice Rajwayi petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA’s”) denial of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. We deny the
petition.
1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in holding that even if Rajwayi’s
motion to reopen were considered timely filed, the motion would be denied
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
MAR 4 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
because Rajwayi had not shown that a different outcome may be warranted if
reopening were granted.
The immigration judge (“IJ”) determined that Rajwayi was not credible
because, among other things, she submitted a fraudulent newspaper page and
testified that she had downloaded the page from the newspaper’s website. In her
motion to reopen, Rajwayi sought to present (1) a psychological evaluation finding
that Rajwayi suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and opining
that her false testimony was attributable to “her disturbed mental state” and (2) an
affidavit offering an alternative explanation for how Rajwayi obtained the
fraudulent newspaper page.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that the psychological
evaluation did not sufficiently address Rajwayi’s testimony concerning the
newspaper page. Rajwayi’s testimony about how she obtained the newspaper page
was coherent, extensive, and detailed, and did not exhibit any lack of memory or
confusion. She became uncertain and confused only when she was presented with
evidence establishing that the newspaper page had been falsified. The BIA did not
abuse its discretion in concluding that the description in the psychological
evaluation about how PTSD would affect Rajwayi’s mental state did not
persuasively explain the original, disproven testimony.
Absent any pertinent explanation as to why she testified untruthfully

-- 2 of 3 --

3
originally, and even taking as true the information in the affidavit regarding how
Rajwayi obtained the fraudulent newspaper page, see Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d
977, 987 (9th Cir. 2005), the new explanation for how Rajwayi obtained the page
does not change the IJ’s determination that her initial story was untrue. Therefore,
the affidavit would support rather than detract from an adverse credibility
determination, and so provided no possibility that the credibility determination
would be different were the proceedings reopened.
2. Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in holding that Rajwayi
had not shown that a different outcome may be warranted if reopening were
granted, we need not address the issue of whether equitable tolling applied to the
motion to reopen.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --