FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IBRAHIMA MBODJI, Nos. 12-74126
11-73517
Petitioner,
Agency No. A098-807-641
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Ibrahima Mbodji, a native and
citizen of Senegal, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) October 27, 2011, and November 23, 2012, orders denying his
motions to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 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 review de novo
due process claims, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny
the petitions for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mbodji’s motions to reopen
as untimely because both motions were filed over four years after the BIA’s final
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and, in both motions, Mbodji failed to present
sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in Senegal 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 do not consider Mbodji’s argument that the BIA failed to provide a
rational explanation for its decision because Mbdoji raised this contention for the
first time in his reply brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th
Cir. 1996).
We reject Mbodji’s contentions that the BIA violated his due process rights
by denying his motions and not considering his evidence. See Lata v. INS, 204
2 11-73517/12-74126
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must show error and prejudice to
establish a due process violation).
Finally, Mbodji’s contention that the BIA misconstrued its authority to
reopen sua sponte is not supported by the record.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-73517/12-74126