Case Name: Francis Salem Michael MALOUF, a.k.a. Fransis Barrac, a.k.a. David Earl Ervin, a.k.a. Francis Maalouf, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-23
Citations: 472 F. App'x 721
Docket Number: No. 09-72030
Parties: Francis Salem Michael MALOUF, a.k.a. Fransis Barrac, a.k.a. David Earl Ervin, a.k.a. Francis Maalouf, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 721–722

Head Matter:
Francis Salem Michael MALOUF, a.k.a. Fransis Barrac, a.k.a. David Earl Ervin, a.k.a. Francis Maalouf, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72030.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2012.
Filed April 23, 2012.
Ahmed M. Abdallah, Esquire, Hollywood, CA, for Petitioner.
Timothy Hayes, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Michelle Gorden Latour, Esquire, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, 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
Francis Salem Michael Malouf, a native of Palestine and citizen of Jordan, 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 deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Malouf s motion to reopen where Malouf failed to demonstrate materially changed circumstances in Jordan. See Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) ("The critical question is . whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution."); Matter of A-N & R-M-N, 22 I. & N. Dec. 953, 954 (BIA 1999) (an alien who has not shown reasonable cause for his absence from his removal hearing must show materially changed circumstances for a motion to reopen to be granted).
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.