Case ID: f-appx_530/html/0634-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hennadiy ZAPOROZHETS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-72762.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2013.
    
    Filed June 20, 2013.
    H. Raymond Fasano, The Law Offices of Madeo & Fasano, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Gary J. Newkirk, Trial, OIL, Daniel Shieh, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-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: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hennadiy Zaporozhets, a native and citizen of Ukraine, 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, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zaporozhets’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than eighteen months after his removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Zaporozhets failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances in Ukraine to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, id. at (c)(3)(h); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008).

Zaporozhets’s contention that the BIA failed to articulate and apply the correct legal standard is not supported by the record.

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