Case ID: f-appx_383/html/0691-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mohammed Ramzan KHAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74625.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 14, 2010.
    Tsz-Hai Huang, Esquire, Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Kathryn Deangelis, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mohammed Ramzan Khan and his family, natives and citizens of Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their 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, Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir.2009), and review due process claims de novo, Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to reopen where the motion was filed over two years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish changed country conditions in Fiji to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) (“The critical question is ... whether circumstances 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.”).

Petitioners’ contention that the BIA did not adequately explain its decision is not supported by the record. In addition, we reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to consider all relevant evidence submitted with the motion to reopen. See Larita-Martinez, 220 F.3d at 1095-96 (holding that absent evidence to the contrary, the BIA is presumed to have considered all the evidence).

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