Case Name: Nasreen SULTANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-01
Citations: 532 F. App'x 711
Docket Number: No. 08-74771
Parties: Nasreen SULTANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 532
Pages: 711–714

Head Matter:
Nasreen SULTANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74771.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2013.
Filed July 1, 2013.
Theodore Cox, Esquire, Law Offices of Theodore Cox, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Oil, Channah Farber, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: RIPPLE, FERNANDEZ, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Kenneth F. Ripple, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Nasreen Sultana, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of her motion to reopen. We deny the petition.
Over five years after her asylum petition was denied by the BIA and she was granted a voluntary departure period of thirty days, Sultana made a motion to reopen and claimed changed country conditions in Bangladesh. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (c)(7)(C)(i)-(ii). Sultana asserts that the BIA erred when it declared that the evidence did not show "such a change in conditions in Bangladesh as to warrant reopening of proceedings in this matter." We disagree.
We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). Moreover, the BIA sufficiently exhibited its consideration of the evidence that Sultana placed before it. See Id., 597 F.3d at 990-91; Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2000). We are unable to conclude that a contrary decision was compelled by the evidence. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 815 & n. 1, 817, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied Sultana's motion to reopen. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008); De Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir.2004).
Petition DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.