Case ID: f-appx_107/html/0068-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anita DEVI; Kunaal Venkat, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-70453.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 9, 2004.
    
    Decided Aug. 17, 2004.
    Martin Resendez Guajardo, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security,San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Frances M. McLaughlin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Anita Devi and her son Kunaal Venkat, natives and citizens of Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their second motion to reopen. Because the transitional rules apply, Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We review for abuse of discretion a denial of a motion to reopen, Sharma v. INS, 89 F.3d 545, 547 (9th Cir.1996), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA considered Petitioners’ affidavit and attached news report regarding changed country conditions in Fiji and found that this evidence did not warrant reopening, and Petitioners did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility for asylum or withholding of deportation. See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 865, 870 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to reopen because the BIA’s denial was not arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law. See Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).