DHARMESH PATEL V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-72648 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED AUG 23 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DHARMESH BALUBHAI PATEL, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-72648 Agency No. A072-176-625 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 16, 2016** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Dharmesh Balubhai Patel, a native and citizen of India, 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 the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 * 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). F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we review de novo due process claims, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Patel’s motion to reopen as untimely, where the motion was filed almost two years after the agency’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Patel failed to establish material changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991-92 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). We reject Patel’s contentions that the BIA’s analysis was deficient. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (the BIA does not have to write an exegesis on every contention). We also reject Patel’s contention that the denial of his motion to reopen constitutes a due process violation. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on due process claim). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-72648

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.