Maisari v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Maisari v. Holder

331 F. App'x 519

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 13, 2009

DocketNo. 06-71543

StatusPublished

This text of 331 F. App'x 519 (Maisari v. Holder) 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

Maisari v. Holder, 331 F. App'x 519 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Nabil Maisari, a native and citizen of Yemen, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“B1A”) order denying his motion to reopen as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Maisari’s motion to reopen as untimely where he filed the motion nineteen months after a final decision was issued in his removal proceedings and did not meet any of the regulatory exceptions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision date).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Nabil Maisari, a native and citizen of Yemen, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“B1A”) order denying his motion to reopen as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Maisari’s motion to reopen as untimely where he filed the motion nineteen months after a final decision was issued in his removal proceedings and did not meet any of the regulatory exceptions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision date).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

331 F. App'x 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maisari-v-holder-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack