RAJA SARWAR V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 17-73303 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 16 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAJA GULFAM SARWAR, AKA Gulfam Sarwar Raja, Petitioner, Nos. 17-73303 18-71556 Agency No. A070-646-737 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 14, 2020** Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Raja Gulfam Sarwar seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") denials of his motion to reopen and his motion for reconsideration, which we review for abuse of discretion. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We have jurisdiction under * 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). 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Petitioner’s motion to reopen. Although Petitioner’s personal circumstances changed when he converted to Christianity, he did not provide "evidence of changed country conditions that are relevant in light of [his] changed circumstances." Chandra v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1034, 1037 (9th Cir. 2014). The record shows that the deplorable conditions for Christians in Pakistan have existed since before 1994, when Petitioner’s removal hearing occurred. See Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2016) (stating that we must compare "the country conditions at the time of the instant motion" with "those at the time of the prior hearing"). 2. Even assuming that Petitioner did not forfeit any challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration, that denial was not an abuse of discretion. Petitioner failed to identify any "legal or factual error in the BIA’s prior decision." Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1)). PETITIONS DENIED. 2

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.