FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GHAYOOR KHAN, No. 09-72392
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-478-717
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Ghayoor Khan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
abuse of discretion, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and
we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Khan’s motion to reopen as
untimely where the motion was filed over five years after the BIA’s final order, see
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Khan failed to present sufficient material, previously
unavailable evidence of changed circumstances in Pakistan 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); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (BIA
did not abuse its discretion where evidence of changed country conditions was not
material to petitioner’s claim, and petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case
for asylum); 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 reject Khan’s contention that the BIA failed to consider all factors,
because Khan has not overcome the presumption that the BIA considered the entire
record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-72392