Bhupendra Keshavlal Amin v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Bhupendra Keshavlal Amin v. Loretta E. Lynch

667 F. App'x 204

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 21, 2016

Docket14-71003

StatusUnpublished

This text of 667 F. App'x 204 (Bhupendra Keshavlal Amin v. Loretta E. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bhupendra Keshavlal Amin v. Loretta E. Lynch, 667 F. App'x 204 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Bhupendra Keshavlal Amin, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his untimely second motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations in removal proceedings, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We review for substantial evidence findings of fact regarding counsel’s performance. Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1024 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Amin’s second motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than ninety days after the final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and the BIA reasonably determined that he failed to establish changed circumstances in India to qualify for an exception to the time limitations for a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 989-90 (9th Cir. 2010).

The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Amin’s motion to reopen because he failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel so as to warrant equitable tolling of the time and numerical limitations' on his motion to reopen. See Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2007). We reject Amin’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INA, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

We decline Amin’s request to remand to the BIA for administrative closure in light of Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA 2012), or for prosecutorial discretion, because he did not request these before the agency. We deny as moot Amin’s request for voluntary departure.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Bhupendra Keshavlal Amin, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his untimely second motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations in removal proceedings, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We review for substantial evidence findings of fact regarding counsel’s performance. Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1024 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Amin’s second motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than ninety days after the final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and the BIA reasonably determined that he failed to establish changed circumstances in India to qualify for an exception to the time limitations for a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 989-90 (9th Cir. 2010).

The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Amin’s motion to reopen because he failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel so as to warrant equitable tolling of the time and numerical limitations' on his motion to reopen. See Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2007). We reject Amin’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INA, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

We decline Amin’s request to remand to the BIA for administrative closure in light of Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA 2012), or for prosecutorial discretion, because he did not request these before the agency. We deny as moot Amin’s request for voluntary departure.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 F. App'x 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bhupendra-keshavlal-amin-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack