Case ID: f-appx_223/html/0657-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sukhjit Singh THIARA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-70080.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 20, 2007 .
    Filed Feb. 28, 2007.
    Sukhjit Singh Thiara, Fresno, CA, pro se.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michelle G. Latour, Merri L. Hankins, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sukhjit Singh Thiara, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen to reapply for asylum based on changed country conditions. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion, see Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Thiara’s motion to reopen on the ground that his affidavit, containing general allegations that circumstances have changed in India, was insufficient to establish Thiara now has a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) (stating that the critical question is “whether 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.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

THE MANDATE SHALL ISSUE FORTHWITH. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.