Case Name: Shankhar KARKI and Anju Karki, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-12
Citations: 584 F. App'x 783
Docket Number: No. 11-71791
Parties: Shankhar KARKI and Anju Karki, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEA, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 783–783

Head Matter:
Shankhar KARKI and Anju Karki, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-71791.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2014.
Filed Sept. 12, 2014.
Marie Licelle Razalo Cobrador, The Bhatta Law Firm, P.C., Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioners.
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Edward John Duffy, Zoe Jaye Heller, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEA, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, 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
Shankhar and Anju Karki, citizens of Nepal, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals's (BIA) denial of a motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and deny the petition for review.
The BIA "has broad discretion in ruling on a motion to reopen," Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 993 (9th Cir.2008), and we conclude it did not abuse that discretion here. The Karkis did not petition for review of the BIA's decision on the merits. The materials submitted with the motion to reopen are similar in nature to evidence the BIA deemed insufficient after the merits hearing. Indeed, the "alleged new attacks and threats by the Maoists [were] based on the exact same underlying circumstances that the [Karkis] alleged existed at the time of the hearing." Therefore, the BIA did not err in concluding that the Karkis had not proffered new facts and material evidence that "would likely change the result in the case." Young Sun Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir.2008), see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.