SYAHRONI ZAKIR V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-72176 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 30 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SYAHRONI ZAKIR, No. 11-72176 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-634-656 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 24, 2013 ** Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Syahroni Zakir, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the * 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). BIA s denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Zakir s untimely motion to reopen where the motion was filed more than a year after the BIA s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Zakir s evidence did not establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, see INS v. Abuda, 485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief sought); Maroufi v. INS, 772 F.2d 597, 599 (9th Cir. 1985) (no prima facie case established where affidavit and application for asylum consisted solely of conclusory and speculative inferences drawn from generalized events ). Zakir s contentions that the agency ignored evidence and that the BIA applied an incorrect burden of proof are not supported by the record. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 11-72176

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.