MUHAMMAD PARVEZ V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-70596 (9th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 16 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MUHAMMAD PARVEZ, No. 12-70596 Petitioner, Agency No. A046-988-737 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 13, 2014** Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Muhammad Parvez, a native and citizen of Pakistan, 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, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and * 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). we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Parvez s motion to reopen because it was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Parvez failed to establish materially changed circumstances in Pakistan to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3); see also He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2007) (The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying motion where petitioners provided insufficient support to establish changed circumstances ); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996 (setting forth requirements for prevailing on a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions). Contrary to Parvez s contentions, the BIA did not otherwise abuse its discretion in denying his motion. See Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 992 ( This Court defers to the Board s exercise of discretion unless it acted arbitrarily, irrationally or contrary to law. ). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 12-70596

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.