Ramesh Prasad; Fouzia Gulnar Prasad 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).
NV/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAMESH PRASAD; FOUZIA GULNAR
PRASAD,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72788
Agency Nos. A078-642-384
A078-642-385
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges
Ramesh Prasad and his wife, Fouzia Gulnar Prasad, natives and citizens of
Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8
FILED
MAR 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

NV/Research 07-72788 2
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,
see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition
for review.
We reject petitioner’s contention that the BIA erred by failing to weigh the
appropriate evidence in considering the motion to reopen. See Fernandez v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed nearly three years after the BIA’s
final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Prasad failed to establish changed
country conditions in Fiji to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time
limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d
942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (“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.”).
To the extent Prasad challenges the BIA’s September 23, 2004 order
denying asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against
Torture, we decline to consider the contentions because they have already been
rejected by this court in Prasad v. Gonzales, No. 04-75207, 2006 WL 620750 (9th
Cir. Mar. 14, 2006). See Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir. 1991)

-- 2 of 3 --

NV/Research 07-72788 3
(explaining that under the ‘law of the case doctrine,’ one panel of an appellate
court will not reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior
appeal in the same case).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --