NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 11 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
AMEEN AL TAIFI, No. 11-73918
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-065-543
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted January 13, 2015
San Francisco California
Before: WALLACE, M. SMITH, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Ameen Al Taifi petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and reviewing for abuse of discretion, Go v. Holder, 744
F.3d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 2014), we 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 Board did not abuse its discretion in holding that Al Taifi’s motion to
reopen was filed out of time or in holding that Al Taifi’s motion did not fall within
the timeliness exception for motions based on changed circumstances. The Board
correctly held that Al Taifi failed to show how his evidence of generalized
conditions in Yemen had individual relevancy to his claims. See Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 989–90 (9th Cir. 2010). The Board also thoroughly
considered the evidence related to the alleged death of Al Taifi’s mother, including
the lack of authentication for the police report and the complete lack of detail
regarding the explanation for her death, and did not abuse its discretion in
concluding that this evidence did not establish any connection between the death of
Al Taifi’s mother and the persecution claimed by Al Taifi. See Lin v. Holder, 588
F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir. 2009) (thorough consideration of evidence revealed lack of
detail regarding connection between actions against petitioner’s relatives and
potential future persecution of petitioner); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988,
996–97 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence immaterial to petitioner’s claim where petitioner
failed to meet his burden to show how he would be affected by the changed
conditions described in the evidence). Thus the Board acted within its discretion
when it held that Al Taifi had not established the existence of changed
circumstances in Yemen that would materially affect his asylum eligibility.
2
PETITION DENIED.
3