Muyingo v. Holder , 362 F. App'x 763 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JAN 20 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    AHMED ZZIZINGA MUYINGO,                         No. 07-71763
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A070-367-287
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted January 11, 2010 **
    Before:        BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    Ahmed Zzizinga Muyingo, a native and citizen of Uganda, petitions for
    review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his
    second motion to reopen removal proceedings to apply for deferral of removal
    *
    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).
    NED/Research
    under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
    § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Malty
    v. Ashcroft, 
    381 F.3d 942
    , 945 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Muyingo’s second motion to
    reopen because he failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in Uganda to
    qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and numerical limitations on
    motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also 
    Malty, 381 F.3d at 945
    (9th Cir. 2004) (critical question is whether circumstances have changed
    sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim now
    does).
    We reject Muyingo’s contention that the BIA abused its discretion by failing
    to consider the evidence submitted with the motion to reopen. See Fernandez v.
    Gonzales, 
    439 F.3d 592
    , 603 (9th Cir. 2006).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    NED/Research                               2                                    07-71763
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-71763

Citation Numbers: 362 F. App'x 763

Filed Date: 1/20/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023