MUDIAGA URIE V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-71039 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 2 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MUDIAGA OBIJURU URIE, AKA Troy Urie, AKA Troy Mudiaga Urie, AKA Mydiaga Urig, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-71039 Agency No. A098-409-078 MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Mudiaga Obijuru Urie, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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 Urie’s motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where the motion was filed over six years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Urie failed to demonstrate material changed circumstances in Nigeria to qualify for a regulatory exception to the time and number limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991-92 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). We reject Urie’s contentions that the BIA failed to adequately review the evidence and improperly considered the 2005 country report. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision). We grant respondent’s motion for leave to file a late opposition to Urie’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 29). We deny Urie’s opposed motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 27). See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc); cf. Gafoor v. INS, 231 F.3d 645, 655-56 (9th Cir. 2000) (the court may take judicial notice of dramatic events and will remand to the 2 14-71039 agency for consideration). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 14-71039

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.