NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 14 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHAGDAR BOLDMYAGMAR; et al., No. 18-72534 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A097-583-345 A097-583-346 v. A097-583-347 A097-583-348 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. MEMORANDUM* On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 10, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: TALLMAN, MURGUIA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Lead petitioner Shagdar Boldmyagmar, a native and citizen of Mongolia, along with his wife and two sons, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying his third motion to reopen his removal * 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). proceedings.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 2014), we deny the petition for review. 1. An alien may file one motion to reopen within ninety days of a final administrative order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); see also Go, 744 F.3d at 607. Boldmyagmar’s third motion to reopen, filed on March 1, 2018—ten years after the BIA issued its final order of removal in his case—is admittedly time- and number-barred. Boldmyagmar argues that he should receive the benefit of the exception for motions to reopen “based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). According to Boldmyagmar, his receipt in 2016 of a settlement approved by the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board awarding him a permanent disability rating of 18% and “lifetime care for his [2006] shoulder injury should a doctor find that there is a need for medical treatment that is due to his work-related injury,” constitutes a changed circumstance. Boldmyagmar relies on our decision in Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1 We refer only to lead petitioner Boldmyagmar in this disposition as his asylum application applies to his wife and children as derivative beneficiaries. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.3(a). 2 1038 (9th Cir. 2011); Vahora, however, granted relief based on changed circumstances in the petitioner’s “home country,” id. at 1045, and therefore provides no support for Boldmyagmar’s position. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Boldmyagmar has not demonstrated that his motion to reopen falls within any exception to the time or number requirements. 2. Boldmyagmar also argues that the BIA should have exercised its sua sponte power to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), and—reading his brief generously—that he warrants a discretionary grant of humanitarian asylum because the loss ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals