ALI GHAHREMANI-NEJAD V. MATTHEW WHITAKER, No. 17-73413 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 19 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALI GHAHREMANI-NEJAD, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-73413 Agency No. A088-515-850 v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 17, 2018** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Ali Ghahremani-Nejad, a native and citizen of Iran, 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 and we review de novo * 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). questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ghahremani-Nejad’s motion to reopen as untimely where he filed it more than seven years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Ghahremani-Nejad failed to demonstrate changed country conditions in Iran to qualify for an exception to the time limitation for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987-90 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). In denying Ghahremani-Nejad’s motion to reopen as untimely, the BIA failed to address his request for sua sponte relief. Thus, we remand for the BIA to consider Ghahremani-Nejad’s request in the first instance. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he BIA [is] not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner.”). Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED. 2 17-73413

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.