Hamimu Mussa 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HAMIMU MUSSA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74948
Agency No. A079-578-538
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Hamimu Mussa, a native and citizen of Rwanda, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying his motion to reopen. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and we review de novo
questions of law, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny
the petition for review.
FILED
MAR 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74948 2
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mussa’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 Mussa failed to present evidence of
changed circumstances in Rwanda to qualify for an exception to the time limit, 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.”). Further, the BIA did not abuse its
discretion in denying Mussa’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of
counsel, because he failed to show that he was prejudiced by his former counsel’s
conduct. See Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 899-90 (prejudice results when the
performance of counsel “was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome
of the proceedings”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --