FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 31 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AHMED ZZIZINGA MUYINGO, No. 10-72516
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-367-287
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 25, 2011 **
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Ahmed Zzizinga Muyingo, a native and citizen of Uganda, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538
*
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).
F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to address Muyingo’s challenge to the BIA’s 2004
order affirming the immigration judge’s decision finding him deportable and
ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on his criminal
convictions, because the petition for review is untimely as to that decision. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.
2005) (en banc). We also lack jurisdiction to address Muyingo’s contention that a
change in case law renders the basis for his deportation order invalid and qualifies
him for additional forms of relief because he failed to exhaust these issues before
the BIA in the motion to reopen currently under review. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Muyingo’s third motion to
reopen as untimely and number barred where the successive motion was filed more
than five years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c), and he did
not establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See Toufighi, 538 F.3d at
996-97 (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief warranting
reopening based on changed country conditions). Contrary to Muyingo’s
contention, he bears the exclusive burden of demonstrating eligibility for relief
2 10-72516
under the Convention Against Torture. See Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207,
1216-23 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 10-72516