NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 10 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHABBIR AHMED FUAD, No. 22-845 Agency No. Petitioner, A206-911-272 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 8, 2023 ** San Francisco, California Before: FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT,*** Senior District Judge. Petitioner Shabbir Ahmed Fuad (“Fuad”), a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) denial of his untimely motion to reopen proceedings. The central issue raised by this * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Richard D. Bennett, United States Senior District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation. petition is whether Fuad has presented evidence of changed country conditions that materially affect his eligibility for relief, as necessary to justify an exception to the 90-day filing deadline. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b), and we deny the petition for review. Fuad entered the United States on October 8, 2014, and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). At his merits hearing, he testified that he was a supporter of the Bangladesh National Party and that he had been attacked by members of a rival party, the Awami League. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) concluded that Fuad did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, that he could safely relocate within Bangladesh, and that he had offered no evidence of government acquiescence. Accordingly, the IJ denied his application, the BIA upheld that denial, and this Court denied Fuad’s petition for review. Six years later, Fuad filed a motion to reopen proceedings, offering evidence that that members of the Awami League had confronted and attacked his family members following the denial of his application. The BIA denied this motion after finding that Fuad’s evidence failed to address the IJ’s dispositive findings. Fuad now seeks review of that denial. As Fuad filed his motion six years after his application was initially denied, he must show that changed country conditions materially affect his eligibility for relief. Ordinarily, a motion to reopen must be filed “within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). 2 This deadline does not apply to a motion to reopen “based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality.” Id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). As this Court outlined in Agonafer v. Sessions, “a petitioner must clear four hurdles” to establish this exception, requiring him to: (1) produce evidence that conditions have changed in the country of removal; (2) demonstrate that the evidence is material; (3) show that the evidence was …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals