Masood, et al v. Holder, No. 08-70803 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED APR 12 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AHMED MASOOD; SHAMSUDA BEGUM, No. 08-70803 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A071-583-668 A071-583-669 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 5, 2011 ** Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Ahmed Masood and Shamsuda Begum, natives and citizens of Bangladesh, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying their 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. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than five years after the BIA s final administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in Bangladesh to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief warranting reopening based on changed country conditions), and petitioners do not challenge the BIA s determination that they are not entitled to equitable tolling. Contrary to petitioners contention, the BIA adequately considered the evidence presented with the motion to reopen. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (BIA must consider issues raised and announce its decision in a manner sufficient for reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 08-70803

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.