Case ID: f-appx_210/html/0737-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Manzurul HUQ; Umme Ruman; Masudul Huq; Mashiul Huq, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75167.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.
    
    Filed Dec. 12, 2006.
    Shan D. Potts, Esq., Berke Law Offices, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, David B. Glazer, United States Department of Justice Environmental Defense Section, San Francisco, CA, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Manzurul Huq, his wife and two children (“Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Bangladesh, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their second motion to reopen deportation proceedings so as to renew their applications for asylum, withholding of deportation, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) in light of changed country conditions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Bolshakov v. INS, 133 F.3d 1279, 1281 (9th Cir.1998), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the new evidence Petitioners submitted did not establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of deportation, or relief under CAT. See Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 530 (9th Cir. 1999) (upholding denial of motion to reopen where petitioner introduced evidence that was too general in nature to demonstrate 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.