Case ID: f-appx_593/html/0646-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ameen AL TAIFI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-73918.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Jan. 13, 2015.
    Filed Feb. 11, 2015.
    John E. Ricci, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Theodore Charles Hirt, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: WALLACE, M. SMITH, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Ameen Al Taifi petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and reviewing for abuse of discretion, Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 609 (9th Cir.2014), we deny the petition for review.

The Board did not abuse its discretion in holding that Al Taifi’s motion to reopen was filed out of time or in holding that Al Taifi’s motion did not fall within the timeliness exception for motions based on changed circumstances. The Board correctly held that Al Taifi failed to show how his evidence of generalized conditions in Yemen had individual relevancy to his claims. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 989-90 (9th Cir.2010). The Board also thoroughly considered the evidence related to the alleged death of A1 Taifi’s mother, including the lack of authentication for the police report and the complete lack of detail regarding the explanation for her death, and did not abuse its discretion in concluding that this evidence did not establish any connection between the death of Al Taifi’s mother and the persecution claimed by Al Taifi. See Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir.2009) (thorough consideration of evidence revealed lack of detail regarding connection between actions against petitioner’s relatives and potential future persecution of petitioner); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.2008) (evidence immaterial to petitioner’s claim where petitioner failed to meet his burden to show how he would be affected by the changed conditions described in the evidence). Thus the Board acted within its discretion when it held that Al Taifi had not established the existence of changed circumstances in Yemen that would materially affect his asylum eligibility.

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