PETAR BAKALOV V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-71856 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 24 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PETAR DONCHEV BAKALOV, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-71856 Agency No. A096-355-758 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Petar Donchev Bakalov, a native and citizen of Bulgaria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his fourth motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi * 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). v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bakalov’s fourth motion to reopen where it was filed nine years after his order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Bakalov failed to establish he qualified for an exception to the time and number limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. §1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008). We reject Bakalov’s contention that the BIA did not consider and assess the relevant evidence. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (BIA adequately considered the evidence and sufficiently announced its decision). We deny Bakalov’s request for fees and decline to consider Bakalov’s due process claim. See Bazuaye v. INS, 79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised for the first time in the reply brief are waived.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-71856

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.