TASHAKORI V. HOLDER, No. 07-70096 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 12 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HASSAN TASHAKORI, Petitioner, No. 07-70096 Agency No. A077-355-228 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. HASSAN TASHAKORI, Petitioner, No. 08-72301 Agency No. A077-355-228 v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Submitted June 4, 2012 ** Pasadena, California Before: TROTT and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and SEEBORG, District Judge.*** Hassan Tashakori seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) denial of two motions to reopen removal proceedings. Tashakori, a political opponent of the regime in his native Iran, overstayed his visa, and an administrative law judge ( ALJ ) granted withholding of removal from Iran, but denied him asylum because he was determined to be firmly resettled in Germany. The ALJ also denied withholding of removal to, and asylum from, Germany. Tashakori s first motion purported to submit new evidence of probable persecution in Germany. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion on the grounds that it did not present material, previously unavailable evidence. INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988). Tashakori filed a second motion to reopen based on a letter he received from the German consulate notifying him of the loss of his legal residency status. The fact that Tashakori voluntarily allowed his German residency to expire by failing to return does not defeat the prior finding that he is firmly resettled. Vang v. INS, 146 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Richard Seeborg, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Northern California, sitting by designation. 2 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 1998). Additionally, the BIA correctly determined his motion to be time and number barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The petition for review is DENIED. 3

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.