Case ID: f-appx_472/html/0775-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Oleksandr KRAVCHUK, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74399.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 17, 2012.
    
    Filed April 25, 2012.
    Victoria Bezman, Esquire, Law Offices of Victoria Bezman, Encino, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Colette Jabes Winston, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Oleksandr Kravchuk, a native and citizen of Ukraine, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his 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, Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kravchuk’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed four years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c), and Kravchuk did not establish prima facie eligibility for relief, see 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).

To the extent Kravchuk challenges the BIA’s underlying order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, we decline to consider his contentions because the court previously rejected them in Kravchuk v. Mukasey, 263 Fed.Appx. 599 (9th Cir.2008). See Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir.1991) (explaining that under the “law of the case doctrine,” one panel of an appellate court will not reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED, 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.