Case Name: Ganesh Bahadur GURUNG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-24
Citations: 474 F. App'x 701
Docket Number: No. 09-73837
Parties: Ganesh Bahadur GURUNG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 701–701

Head Matter:
Ganesh Bahadur GURUNG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73837.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2012
Filed July 24, 2012.
Judith L. Wood, Esquire, Law Offices of Judith L. Wood & Jesse A. Moorman, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Marshall Tamor Golding, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, 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
Ganesh Bahadur Gurung, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his second motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, 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 Gurung's motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed over five years after the BIA's final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Gurung did not establish prima facie eligibility for relief, see Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief warranting reopening based on changed country conditions).
We reject Gurung's challenges to the underlying denial of relief by the immigration judge and the BIA, because those issues were decided by the court in Gurung v. Gonzales, 168 Fed.Appx. 216 (9th Cir.2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.