Asraf Uz Zaman v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

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). Accordingly, Zaman’s
request for oral argument is denied.
/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ASRAF UZ ZAMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-73684
Agency No. A075-980-313
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Asraf Uz Zaman, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing
FILED
DEC 28 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

/Research 06-73684 2
for abuse of discretion, Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004), we
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zaman’s motion to reopen
because the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA’s order dismissing
the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); see also Matter of
Velarde-Pacheco, 23 I. & N. Dec. 253, 256 (BIA 2002) (motion to reopen based
on pending I-130 petition may be granted if, inter alia, the motion is timely filed),
and Zaman failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in Bangladesh to qualify
for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii);
see also Malty, 381 F.3d at 945 (“The critical question is . . . whether
circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not
have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future
persecution.”).
We lack jurisdiction to review Zaman’s contention that the filing deadline
should have been tolled because he failed to raise that issue before the BIA and
thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
To the extent Zaman contends that the BIA should have invoked its sua
sponte authority to reopen proceedings, we lack jurisdiction. See Ekimian v. INS,

-- 2 of 3 --

/Research 06-73684 3
303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
Zaman’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --