Case ID: f-appx_682/html/0571-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mr. ROBINSON, aka Robinson, aka Fnu Robinson, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70673
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 16, 2017
    Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Law Office of Armin Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner
    Kimberly A. Burdge, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Respondent’s motion to lift the stay of proceedings (Docket Entry No. 41) is granted.

Robinson, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Robinson’s second motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where he filed it over five years after the final order of removal, . see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where he failed to show prima facie eligibility for the relief he sought, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008), (explaining the BIA can deny a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions for failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1065 (9th Cir. 2009) (even under disfavored group analysis, petitioner must present some evidence of individualized risk).

PETITON FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.