Masood v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Masood v. Holder

426 F. App'x 579

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 12, 2011

Docket08-70803

StatusUnpublished

This text of 426 F. App'x 579 (Masood 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

Masood v. Holder, 426 F. App'x 579 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Ahmed Masood and Shamsuda Begum, natives and citizens of Bangladesh, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than five years after the BIA’s final administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), *580 and petitioners failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in Bangladesh to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief warranting reopening based on changed country conditions), and petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s determination that they are not entitled to equitable tolling.

Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the BIA adequately considered the evidence presented with the motion to reopen. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir.2010) (BIA must consider issues raised and announce its decision in a manner sufficient for reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted).

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 **

Ahmed Masood and Shamsuda Begum, natives and citizens of Bangladesh, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than five years after the BIA’s final administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), *580 and petitioners failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in Bangladesh to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief warranting reopening based on changed country conditions), and petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s determination that they are not entitled to equitable tolling.

Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the BIA adequately considered the evidence presented with the motion to reopen. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir.2010) (BIA must consider issues raised and announce its decision in a manner sufficient for reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted).

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)

426 F. App'x 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masood-v-holder-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack