VIKTOR OSTAPENKO V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-71883 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 2 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VIKTOR NIKOLAYEVICH OSTAPENKO, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-71883 Agency No. A071-320-466 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N. R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Viktor Nikolayevich Ostapenko, a native and citizen of Moldova, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his third 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, * 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). Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ostapenko’s third motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed more than two years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Ostapenko failed to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief he sought, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996 (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-71883

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.