FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 12 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHANKHAR KARKI and ANJU KARKI, No. 11-71791
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A089-697-541
A089-697-542
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: BEA, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Shankhar and Anju Karki, citizens of Nepal, petition for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) denial of a motion to reopen. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and deny the petition for review.
*
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).
The BIA “has broad discretion in ruling on a motion to reopen,” Toufighi v.
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 993 (9th Cir. 2007), and we conclude it did not abuse that
discretion here. The Karkis did not petition for review of the BIA’s decision on the
merits. The materials submitted with the motion to reopen are similar in nature to
evidence the BIA deemed insufficient after the merits hearing. Indeed, the
“alleged new attacks and threats by the Maoists [were] based on the exact same
underlying circumstances that the [Karkis] alleged existed at the time of the
hearing.” Therefore, the BIA did not err in concluding that the Karkis had not
proffered new facts and material evidence that “would likely change the result in
the case.” Young Sun Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008), see 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
PETITION DENIED.
2