Jaswal v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Jaswal v. Gonzales

165 F. App'x 516

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 17, 2006

DocketNo. 04-73223

StatusPublished

This text of 165 F. App'x 516 (Jaswal v. Gonzales) 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

Jaswal v. Gonzales, 165 F. App'x 516 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Jorawar Singh Jaswal, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 [517]*517(9th Cir.1999), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Jaswal’s challenge to the BIA’s November 17, 2003 order dismissing his appeal because he did not file a timely petition for review from that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1), (2).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied Jaswal’s motion to reopen to reapply for asylum based on changed country conditions in India. The Internet articles submitted by Jaswal constituted only general background material, were not probative of his claim and did not establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See Konstantinova, 195 F.3d at 530 (upholding denial of motion to reopen where petitioner introduced evidence that was too general in nature to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit 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

MEMORANDUM

**

Jorawar Singh Jaswal, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 [517]*517(9th Cir.1999), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Jaswal’s challenge to the BIA’s November 17, 2003 order dismissing his appeal because he did not file a timely petition for review from that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1), (2).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied Jaswal’s motion to reopen to reapply for asylum based on changed country conditions in India. The Internet articles submitted by Jaswal constituted only general background material, were not probative of his claim and did not establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See Konstantinova, 195 F.3d at 530 (upholding denial of motion to reopen where petitioner introduced evidence that was too general in nature to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 F. App'x 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jaswal-v-gonzales-ca9-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack