Chowdhury v. Mukasey
This text of 276 F. App'x 673 (Chowdhury v. Mukasey) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
In these consolidated petitions, Marzena Chowdhury and her family, natives and citizens of Bangladesh, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying withholding of removal and review of the BIA order denying their motion to reconsider its order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, Baballah v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1067, 1073 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny petition No. 04-73328 and dismiss petition No. 05-70508.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Chowdhury could reasonably relocate to another part of Bangladesh. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b); see Cuadras v. INS, 910 F.2d 567, 571 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1990).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).
No. 04-73328 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED;
No. 05-70508 PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
276 F. App'x 673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chowdhury-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.