Case ID: f-appx_84/html/0784-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arsene Beaudelaire DOHO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-70527.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
    
    Decided Dec. 11, 2003.
    Arsene Beaudelaire Doho, pro se, Lancaster, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Elizabeth J. Stevens, Esq., Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arsene Beaudelaire Doho, a native and citizen of the Ivory Coast, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Doho’s motion to reopen based on new evidence. The newspaper articles Doho submitted do not establish prima facie eligibility for asylum because Doho failed to show that the current government or the rebels fighting the government would be interested in Doho. See Ramirez-Alejandre v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 365, 376 (9th Cir.2003).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision dismissing Doho’s appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture because Doho did not file his petition fox' review with this Court within 30 days of the BIA’s ox’der of dismissal, and the motion to reopen does not toll the time to file a petition for review. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,1258 (9th Cir.1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED AS TO MOTION TO REOPEN; PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED AS TO BIA’S DECISION TO DISMISS APPEAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM, WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL, AND PROTECTION UNDER THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE. 
      
      This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.