MR. ROBINSON V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 14-70673 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 16 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MR. ROBINSON, AKA Robinson, AKA Fnu Robinson, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-70673 Agency No. A095-634-713 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM * v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 8, 2017** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Respondent’s motion to lift the stay of proceedings (Docket Entry No. 41) is granted. Robinson, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his 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). 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, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Robinson’s second motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where he filed it over five years after the final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where he failed to show prima facie eligibility for the relief he sought, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining the BIA can deny a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions for failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1065 (9th Cir. 2009) (even under disfavored group analysis, petitioner must present some evidence of individualized risk). PETITON FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-70673

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.