Mohammed Khan v. Jefferson Sessions

714 F. App'x 763
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 9, 2018
Docket11-71747
StatusUnpublished

This text of 714 F. App'x 763 (Mohammed Khan v. Jefferson Sessions) 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
Mohammed Khan v. Jefferson Sessions, 714 F. App'x 763 (9th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Muhammad Kafiullah Khan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his motion to reopen based on a change in country conditions in Pakistan after the date of Khan’s asylum hearing. 1 Reviewing for abuse of discretion, we affirm. See Martinez-Hernandez v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2015) (reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion).

The BIA denied the motion to reopen primarily on the basis that the motion was based on “incidents or threats that occurred prior to [Khan’s] departure from Pakistan.” See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that the petitioner must demonstrate “that circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution”) (emphasis added) (citation omitted).

The BIA also noted that the news articles submitted by Khan reported recent incidents of violence at the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, with no showing that these incidents relate in any way to Khan or his family members. See id. (concluding that evidence of general violence does not suffice to establish changed country conditions directed toward the group of which the petitioner is a member). We cannot say that this determination by the BIA was arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law. See Martinez-Hernandez, 778 F.3d at 1088.

PETITION DENIED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. The claims of Khan’s wife and children are derivative of his claim and succeed or fail accordingly.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Javier Martinez-Hernandez v. Eric Holder, Jr.
778 F.3d 1086 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Juan Ramirez-Munoz v. Loretta E. Lynch
816 F.3d 1226 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
714 F. App'x 763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mohammed-khan-v-jefferson-sessions-ca9-2018.