Jagdev Ram 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAGDEV RAM,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71978
Agency No. A078-638-384
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jagdev Ram, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying Ram’s motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
APR 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-71978 2
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th
Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ram’s motion to reopen
because Ram’s motion was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Ram failed
to establish changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception
to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); 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.”).
Furthermore, we decline to reconsider Ram’s challenge to the agency denial
of his claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture because his
contentions have already been considered and rejected by this court. See Ram v.
Ashcroft, No. 03-74495 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2005); see also Merritt v. Mackey, 932
F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir. 1991) (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.

-- 2 of 2 --