AHMAD ABULFEILAT V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-70969 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 17 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AHMAD KHEIR ABULFEILAT, Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No.13-70969 Agency No. A044-172-574 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted May 3, 2016 Pasadena, California Before: FISHER, M. SMITH, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Ahmad Kheir Abulfeilat, a native and citizen of Jordan, appeals from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings on the basis of changed circumstances in Jordan. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Reviewing the BIA’s determination for abuse of discretion, we deny the petition. Valeriano v. Gonzales, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 474 F.3d 669, 672 (9th Cir. 2007). Abulfeilat claims that he is entitled to protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) because, if returned to Jordan, it is more likely than not that he would be tortured on account of his apostate status. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Previously in Abulfeilat v. Holder, 472 F. App’x 674, 675 (9th Cir. 2012), we found that Abulfeilat had failed to establish a CAT claim with the evidence introduced at his 2002 hearing. In connection with the present motion to reopen, Abulfeilat has not presented new and material evidence of changed circumstances in Jordan. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Abulfeilat did submit new expert affidavits, news articles, and reports concerning the treatment of apostates by members of civil society in Jordan since 2002. Yet, this evidence does not establish a prima facie case that he would more likely than not be tortured “with the consent or acquiescence, through awareness or willful blindness, of the Jordanian government.” See Abulfeilat, 472 F. App’x at 675 (citing Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003)). We therefore deny Abulfeilat’s petition.1 1 We do not find Abulfeilat’s remaining arguments persuasive. Abulfeilat points to no authority for sealing the BIA’s proceedings. Further, the BIA’s “‘general statement that [it] considered all the evidence before [it]’” is sufficient because “nothing in the record or the BIA’s decision indicates a failure to consider all the evidence.” Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th Cir. 2011) (second 2 We also deny Abulfeilat’s pending motion to seal this disposition. Two of our decisions on Abulfeilat’s case are already publicly available and Abulfeilat did not move to seal those proceedings. PETITION DENIED. alteration in original) (quoting Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2006)). We cannot review the BIA’s refusal to reopen removal proceedings on a sua sponte basis. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011). Finally, Abulfeilat did not provide sufficient justification for revisiting our determination that he had been convicted of a “particularly serious” crime. See Ingle v. Circuit City, 408 F.3d 592, 594 (9th Cir. 2005). 3
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.
