NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AHMAD KHEIR ABULFEILAT,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 13

- 70969

Agency No. A044

- 172

- 574

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted May 3, 2016 Pasadena, California

Before: FISHER, M. SMITH, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Ahmad Kheir Abulfeilat

, a native and citizen of Jordan

, appeals

from the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ (BIA ) denial of his motion to reopen his

removal proceedings on the basis of changed circumstances in Jordan

. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Reviewing the BIA’ s

determination for a

buse of discretion, we deny the petition

. Valeriano v. Gonzales

,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

MAY 17 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

474 F.3d 669, 672 (9th Cir. 2007).

Abulfeilat claims that he is entitled to protection under the C onvention

Against Torture (CAT ) because, if returned to Jordan, it is more likely than not th at

he would be tortured on account of his apostate status. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2).

Previously in Abulfeilat v. Holder , 472 F

. App ’x 674 , 675 (9th Cir. 2012)

, we

found that Abulfeilat had failed to establish a CAT claim with the evidence

introduced at his 2002 hearing

. In connection with the present motion to reopen,

Abulfeilat has not presented new and material evidence of ch anged circumstances

in Jordan. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Abulfeilat did submit new expert affidavi ts,

news articles, and reports concerning the treatment of apostates by members of

civil society in Jordan since 2002. Yet, this evidence does not establish a prima

facie case that he would more likely than not be tortured “ with the consent or

acquiescence , through awareness or willful blindness, of the Jordanian

government.” See Abulfeilat , 472 F. App ’x at 675 (citing Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332

F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003) )

. We therefore deny Abulfeilat’s petition. 1

1 We do not find Abulfeilat’s remaining arguments persuasive. Abulfeilat points to no authority for sealing the BIA’s proceedings. Further, t he BIA’s

“ ‘ general statement that [it] considered all the evidence before [it] ’ ” is sufficient because “nothing in the record or the BIA’s decision indicates a failure to consider
all the evidence.” Cole v. Holder , 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th Cir. 2011) (second3

We also deny Abulfeilat’s pending motion to seal this disposition . Two of

our decisions on Abulfeilat’s case are already publicly available and Abulfeilat did

not move to seal those proceedings.

PETITION DENIED.

alteration in original) (quoting Almaghzar v. Gonzales , 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2006))

. We cannot review the BIA’ s refusal to reopen removal proceedings on a sua sponte basis. See Mejia

- Hernandez v. Holder , 633 F.3d 818, 82 3

- 2 4 (9th Cir. 2011). Finally, Abulfeilat did not provide sufficient justification for revisiting our

determination that he had been convicted of a “particularly serious” crime. See Ingle v. Circuit City , 408 F.3d 592, 594 (9th Cir. 2005).