Case Name: Gulam MOSTOFA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-21
Citations: 422 F. App'x 648
Docket Number: No. 09-72047
Parties: Gulam MOSTOFA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 422
Pages: 648–649

Head Matter:
Gulam MOSTOFA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72047.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 21, 2011.
Ahmed M. Abdallah, Esquire, Hollywood, CA, for Petitioner.
Janette L. Allen, Esquire, Trial, 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: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, 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
Gulam Mostofa, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, 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 review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen. He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2007). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Mostofa's motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over six years after the BIA's final administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Mostofa failed to establish changed circumstances in Bangladesh to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); see also 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.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.