Rahro v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Rahro v. Gonzales

150 F. App'x 727

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 19, 2005

DocketNo. 04-72675

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 150 F. App'x 727 (Rahro 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

Rahro v. Gonzales, 150 F. App'x 727 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Jamshid Rahro, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings in order to adjust his status based on marriage to a United States citizen, and to re-apply for asylum based on changed circumstances. We have jurisdiction under 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 (9th Cir.1999), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Rahro’s motion to reopen as untimely. Rahro. filed his motion- months after the 90-day filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (stating that a motion to reopen “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered”). The motion did not, as Rahro contends, fall [728]*728within the exception to the deadline found at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), because Rahro did not demonstrate changed circumstances in Iran that were material to his asylum claim. See Konstantinova, 195 F.3d at 530 (affirming denial of motion to reopen where new evidence offered was too general to establish a well-founded fear of persecution).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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

**

Jamshid Rahro, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings in order to adjust his status based on marriage to a United States citizen, and to re-apply for asylum based on changed circumstances. We have jurisdiction under 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 (9th Cir.1999), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Rahro’s motion to reopen as untimely. Rahro. filed his motion- months after the 90-day filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (stating that a motion to reopen “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered”). The motion did not, as Rahro contends, fall [728]*728within the exception to the deadline found at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), because Rahro did not demonstrate changed circumstances in Iran that were material to his asylum claim. See Konstantinova, 195 F.3d at 530 (affirming denial of motion to reopen where new evidence offered was too general to establish a well-founded fear of persecution).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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)

150 F. App'x 727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rahro-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack