Case ID: f-appx_539/html/0715-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Olusegun Oluwole OSHILAJA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72830.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 1, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 20, 2013.
    John Martin Pope, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Puneet Cheema, Trial, Oil, • Ada Elsie Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: GRABER, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Olusegun Oluwole Oshilaja, a native and citizen of Nigeria, 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 denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Oshilaja’s motion to reopen as untimely where Oshilaja filed the motion more than two years after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and failed to show materially changed country conditions in Nigeria that would excuse the late filing, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) (requiring circumstances to “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”).

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