Case ID: f-appx_574/html/0751-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Azeez Jimmy IMOHI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-71104.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 20, 2014.
    Azeez Jimmy Imohi, San Bernardino, CA, pro se.
    Wendy Benner-Leon, Esquire, Oil, Kathryn Deangelis, 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: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)..
    
   MEMORANDUM

Azeez Jimmy Imohi, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se 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 Imohi’s untimely motion to reopen because it considered the record and acted within its broad discretion in determining the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.2008) (requiring movant to establish prima facie eligibility for relief and discussing consequences of lack of credibility). We reject Imohi’s contentions that the BIA improperly analyzed his claim.

Further, we do not consider any challenge Imohi raises to the agency’s underlying denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, in light of our decision in Imohi v. INS, 87 F.3d 1319 (9th Cir.1996).

Finally, we reject Imohi’s collateral es-toppel argument.

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