AZEEZ IMOHI V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 13-71104 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 20 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AZEEZ JIMMY IMOHI, No. 13-71104 Petitioner, Agency No. A092-905-051 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. Azeez Jimmy Imohi, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se 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 * 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). review for abuse of discretion the BIA s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Imohi s untimely motion to reopen because it considered the record and acted within its broad discretion in determining the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to establish prima facie eligibility for relief and discussing consequences of lack of credibility). We reject Imohi s contentions that the BIA improperly analyzed his claim. Further, we do not consider any challenge Imohi raises to the agency s underlying denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, in light of our decision in Imohi v. INS, No. 94-70705, 1996 WL 297612 (9th Cir. June 05, 1996). Finally, we reject Imohi s collateral estoppel argument. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 11-71107

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.