FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 30 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAMMAD SHAMEEM; SAMSHAD No. 08-74815
BEGUM SHAMEEM,
Agency Nos. A078-670-556
Petitioners, A078-670-557
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Mohammed Shameem and Samshad Begum Shameem, natives and citizens
of Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen. Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen because it was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed
to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in Fiji to qualify for the
regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The
critical question is . . . whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a
petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a
well-founded fear of future persecution.”).
We reject petitioners contention that the BIA failed to consider the evidence
because they have not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record.
See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-74815