Case ID: f-appx_479/html/0116-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hardeep Singh BHAMRA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71618.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 17, 2012.
    Saad Ahmad, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.
    Erica Miles, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hardeep Singh Bhamra, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second 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, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bhamra’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed over five years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(2), and Bhamra did not establish a material change in country conditions, see Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) (“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.”).

Petitioner has waived any challenge to the BIA’s findings regarding ineffective assistance of counsel. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).

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