Case Name: Monzur AHMED, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-24
Citations: 472 F. App'x 740
Docket Number: No. 08-73179
Parties: Monzur AHMED, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 740–740

Head Matter:
Monzur AHMED, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73179.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2012.
Filed April 24, 2012.
Judith L. Wood, Esquire, Jesse Adams Moorman, III, Law Offices of Judith L. Wood & Jesse A. Moorman, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Virginia Lum, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, 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
Monzur Ahmed, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his second motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ahmed's second motion to reopen as numerically-barred and untimely where it was filed over five years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Ahmed failed to demonstrate materially changed circumstances in Bangladesh to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.