SIDHARTHA BHISE V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, III, No. 17-71430 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 22 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SIDHARTHA MADHU BHISE, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-71430 Agency No. A088-492-940 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 15, 2018** Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Sidhartha Madhu Bhise, native and citizen of India, 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 de novo claims of due * 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). process violations in removal proceedings, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. We decline to consider any challenge to the agency’s underlying denial of relief because this Court has already decided those issues. See Bhise v. Lynch, 648 Fed. Appx. 650 (9th Cir. 2016). The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Bhise’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to show prejudice. See Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793-94 (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, petitioner must show counsel’s performance was so inadequate it may have affected the outcome of proceedings). The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Bhise’s untimely motion to reopen because Bhise failed to establish materially changed country conditions in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 987-90 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner failed to show evidence was “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). We reject Bhise’s contentions that the BIA applied the wrong legal standard 2 17-71430 in its analysis or failed to consider record evidence. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 17-71430
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.
