Bahadar Ram Lakha v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BAHADAR RAM LAKHA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71715 & 14-73690
Agency No. A029-904-467
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Bahadar Ram Lakha, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying his second and third
untimely motions to reopen. We consolidate his petitions for review in Nos. 13-
71715 and 14-73690. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
JAN 25 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400
F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and deny the petitions for review.
With respect to petition No. 13-71715, the BIA did not abuse its discretion
in denying Lakha’s second motion to reopen, alleging ineffective assistance of
counsel, where Lakha failed to establish prejudice resulting from his former
attorneys’ alleged ineffective assistance. See id. at 793 (to prevail on an ineffective
assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel failed to
perform with sufficient competence and that he was prejudiced by counsel’s
performance).
With respect to petition No. 14-73690, the BIA did not abuse its discretion
in denying Lakha’s third motion to reopen, where Lakha failed to establish
materially changed country conditions in India to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) (requiring “changed
circumstances arising in the country of nationality”); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir. 2010) (no changed country conditions where country
conditions evidence submitted with petitioner’s motion to reopen was not
qualitatively different from that submitted at original hearing).
Contrary to Lakha’s contention in both petitions, the BIA provided sufficient
reasoning, detail, and evaluation of evidence in denying his motions to reopen,
13-71715 & 14-73690 2

-- 2 of 3 --

where it considered the evidence submitted and explained why Lahka had not met
his burdens. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (“What is required is merely that [the
BIA] consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to
enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely
reacted.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); see Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d
762, 771 (9th Cir. 2011) (the BIA is not required to “discuss each piece of
evidence submitted”).
Respondent’s unopposed November 9, 2015, motion for an extension in
petition No. 14-73690 is granted.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-71715 & 14-73690 3

-- 3 of 3 --