Case ID: f-appx_150/html/0727-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jamshid RAHRO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-72675.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 11, 2005.
    
    Decided Oct. 19, 2005.
    Jamshid Rahro, Alhambra, CA, pro se.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., John S. Hogan, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: HALL, T.G. NELSON and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jamshid Rahro, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings in order to adjust his status based on marriage to a United States citizen, and to re-apply for asylum based on changed circumstances. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir.1999), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Rahro’s motion to reopen as untimely. Rahro. filed his motion- months after the 90-day filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (stating that a motion to reopen “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered”). The motion did not, as Rahro contends, fall within the exception to the deadline found at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), because Rahro did not demonstrate changed circumstances in Iran that were material to his asylum claim. See Konstantinova, 195 F.3d at 530 (affirming denial of motion to reopen where new evidence offered was too general to establish a well-founded fear of persecution).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.