Case Name: David Mungai NJENGA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-18
Citations: 528 F. App'x 755
Docket Number: No. 08-74044
Parties: David Mungai NJENGA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 528
Pages: 755–756

Head Matter:
David Mungai NJENGA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74044.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2013.
Filed June 18, 2013.
David Mungai Njenga, Kent, WA, pro se.
Thomas Fatouros, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Depart ment of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
David Mungai Njenga, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Njenga's untimely motion to reopen because he failed to establish material evidence of changed circumstances in Kenya. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (a petitioner's evidence lacks the required materiality where it simply recounts generalized conditions that fail to demonstrate "that her predicament is appreciably different from the dangers faced by her fellow citizens").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.