FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 18 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANDREY CHERBA, No. 17-73396 Petitioner, Agency No. A071-378-762 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 13, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: HAWKINS and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and GRITZNER,*** District Judge. * 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 James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation. Andrey Cherba petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his fourth motion to reopen his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). Reviewing for abuse of discretion, INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 107 (1988), we deny the petition. 1. The immigration court properly exercised jurisdiction over Cherba’s removal proceeding. Citing Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), Cherba argues the Board should have vacated his removal order because his Notice to Appear was defective. This argument is foreclosed by Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 115, 116 (9th Cir. 2019) (“A notice to appear need not include time and date information to . . . [meet] the regulatory requirements and . . . [vest] jurisdiction in the [Immigration Judge].”). 2. The parties do not dispute that Cherba’s motion to reopen is untimely and exceeds the number of motions allowed by 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7). These bars do not apply if a motion to reopen is “based on changed country conditions arising in the . . . country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” Id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). The Board did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Cherba was not entitled to reopen his proceedings based on his argument that conditions for 2 Baptists in Ukraine have materially changed since 2011. Cherba argued that Baptists suffered persecution when Ukraine was a member of the Soviet Union, but the Soviet Union dissolved years before Cherba arrived in the United States in 1997. Cherba points to isolated incidents of present violence in Ukraine against Baptists, but does not meaningfully compare these incidents to conditions in 2011. In addition, the violence was committed by pro-Russian separatists, and in Eastern Ukraine, where Cherba does not have family. We uphold the Board’s factual findings in support of a denial of a motion to reopen if the findings are supported by substantial evidence. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Here, substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Cherba would be ineligible for asylum, even if the merits of his claim were considered. Cherba presented no evidence ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals