Case Name: Ali Amzad HOSSAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-23
Citations: 221 F. App'x 655
Docket Number: No. 05-71844
Parties: Ali Amzad HOSSAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 221
Pages: 655–656

Head Matter:
Ali Amzad HOSSAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-71844.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.
Filed Feb. 23, 2007.
Reynold E. Finnegan, Esq., Finnegan & Diba A. Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Home land Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michele Y.F. Sarko, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Patricia M. Bowman, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ and McKEOWN Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ali Amzad Hossan, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, 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. See Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hossan's motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA's decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Hossan failed to submit sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in Bangladesh to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.