Case ID: f-appx_474/html/0560-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ghayoor KHAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72392.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 9, 2012.
    Maleeha Haq, Hardeep Singh Rai, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Marion Guyton, Esquire, Trial, Daniel Shieh, Esquire, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ghayoor Khan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, 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, 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 Khan’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over five years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Khan failed to present sufficient material, previously unavailable evidence of changed circumstances in Pakistan to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.2008) (BIA did not abuse its discretion where evidence of changed country conditions was not material to petitioner’s claim, and petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for asylum); 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.”).

We reject Khan’s contention that the BIA failed to consider all factors, because Khan has not overcome the presumption that the BIA considered the entire record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006).

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