Koci v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 4, 2026
• Docket: 24-6171
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 4 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RRAFMAN KOCI, No. 24-6171 Agency No. Petitioner, A075-682-288 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 2, 2026** Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, District Judge.***

Petitioner Rrafman Koci seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) dismissal of his motion to reopen. This is Petitioner’s fifth motion to

* 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). *** The Honorable Jeffrey Vincent Brown, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. reopen, filed more than 20 years after his final administrative order of removal was

issued. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b), and we deny the petition.

1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying equitable tolling of

Petitioner’s motion to reopen. Petitioner failed to establish “that he has been

pursuing his rights diligently,” or “that some extraordinary circumstance stood in

his way and prevented timely filing.” Bent v. Garland, 115 F.4th 934, 941 (9th

Cir. 2024). First, the alleged breach of Petitioner’s confidentiality occurred in

2001, yet he did not reference this evidence in any of the motions to reopen he

filed between 2004 and 2024. Rodriguez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th

Cir. 2021) (explaining that for the BIA to grant a motion to reopen based on

changed country conditions, the petitioner must produce evidence that was not

previously available).

Moreover, Petitioner incorrectly asserts that L-T-M v. Whitaker, 760 F.

App’x 498, 500 (9th Cir. 2019), constituted a fundamental change in asylum law.

In fact, Petitioner cites a decision from this Court that predates at least two of his

motions to reopen where we remanded the case after finding the government

breached the petitioner’s confidentiality. Owino v. Holder, 771 F.3d 527, 533–35

(9th Cir. 2014). Thus, Petitioner “has alleged no facts—before the I[mmigration]

J[udge], the BIA, or on appeal before us—suggesting a diligent pursuit of [his]

rights in the intervening years between [his] removal and [Owino]; nor has [he]

2 24-6171 shown that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely

filing of [his] motion.” See Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1224 (9th Cir. 2020)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).1

2. We do not have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s exercise of

its discretion against sua sponte reopening of Petitioner’s removal proceedings

because he has failed to allege any colorable legal or constitutional issues in the

BIA’s decision-making. Lona, 958 F.3d at 1229.

PETITION DENIED.2

1 In accordance with our determination that Petitioner’s claim is time-barred, we decline to address the merits of his asylum claim. 2 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. The motion for a stay of removal (Dkt. No. 27) is otherwise denied.

3 24-6171