Abdul Rashid 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ABDUL RASHID,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70914
Agency No. A070-145-179
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Abdul Rashid, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70914 2
2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rashid’s motion to reopen
as untimely where the motion was filed over three years after the BIA’s final
decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Rashid failed to present sufficient
evidence of changed circumstances in Pakistan to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the time limit, 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.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --