Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0489-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Viktor Nikolayevich OSTAPENKO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-71883
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    Filed October 2, 2017
    Viktor Nikolayevich Ostapenko, Pro Se
    OIL, Joanna L. Watson, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S, Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    
      Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N. R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Viktor Nikolayevich Ostapenko, a native and citizen of Moldova, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his third 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, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ostapenko’s third motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed more than two years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Os-tapenko failed -to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief he sought, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996 (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.