Case ID: f-appx_585/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

Kevin Gatheru MBUGUA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72084.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 19, 2014.
    
    Filed Nov. 21, 2014.
    Thipphavone Ark, Law Office of Thip-phavone Ark, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Virginia Lum, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: NOONAN, FERNANDEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kevin Gatheru Mbugua, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and deny the petition for review.

The BIA correctly determined that Mbugua did not meet his burden of submitting evidence showing that country conditions in Kenya had changed in a way that would establish Mbugua’s prima facie eligibility for relief from removal. As the BIA stated, the record lacks any evidence supporting Mbugua’s claim that his father was killed for political reasons. The BIA’s determination that tribal violence in Kenya involving the Kikuyu tribe had ended at the time Mbugua filed his motion is also supported by substantial evidence. Because Mbugua failed to show changed country conditions, his motion to reopen did not qualify for an exception from the ninety-day filing deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3). Accordingly, the BIA did not err in denying Mbugua’s motion to reopen as untimely.

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