Case ID: f-appx_518/html/0531-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hassan ANAWARUL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 08-72747, 09-74072.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 8, 2013.
    Filed May 15, 2013.
    Judith L. Wood, Esquire, Jesse Adams Moorman, III, Law Offices of Judith L. Wood & Jesse A. Moorman, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Fatouros, Esquire, 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: O’SCANNLAIN, PAEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Anawarul Hassan, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of two decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The first dismissed his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s denial of Hassan’s first untimely motion to reopen. The second denied Hassan’s second untimely motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction over his petitions under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). The denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hassan’s motions to reopen where the motions were filed more than twelve years after the order of removal and Has-san has failed to demonstrate changed country conditions in Bangladesh. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); see also 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2,1003.23.

To the extent Hassan argues that there were changed country conditions because his marriage to Shira Hussain renders him a member of a particular social group, he did not exhaust this claim before the BIA and we have no jurisdiction to review it. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).

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