FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KARIMULLAH QURESHI; et al., No. 09-71122
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A075-526-473
A075-526-474
v. A076-715-255
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Karimullah Qureshi, and his family, natives and citizens of Bangladesh,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to
*
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).
reopen. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely and number-barred where the motion was filed over four years
after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to
present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in Bangladesh 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.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-71122