Case ID: f-appx_510/html/0532-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Amir Karim EDDIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71350.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
    
    Filed Feb. 20, 2013.
    Alexandra Andy Cristea, Esquire, Alexandra A. Cristea, Law Offices, Downey, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Rachel Louise Browning, Trial, Claire Workman, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Amir Karim Eddin, a native and citizen of Syria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Guzman v. INS, 818 F.3d 911, 912 n. 1 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.

Eddin contends the BIA erred in denying his motion to reopen to file for asylum based on his rejection of Islam and conversion to Christianity. The BIA acted within its broad discretion in determining Eddin failed to submit evidence showing that the Syrian government either would persecute him on account of his apostasy or conversion or be unable or unwilling to protect him. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief sought). Accordingly, Eddin’s motion to reopen fails.

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