Irfan Pervai Bhatti, a.k.a. Irfan Pervaiz Bhatti 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
IRFAN PERVAI BHATTI, a.k.a. Irfan
Pervaiz Bhatti,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr. Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71986
Agency No. A096-386-657
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Irfan Pervai Bhatti, 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
FILED
JUL 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71986 2
the denial of a motion to reopen, Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 2009),
and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bhatti’s motion to reopen,
where Bhatti failed to demonstrate a change in country conditions in Pakistan. See
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Lin, 588 F.3d at 988-89 (BIA did not abuse its
discretion in denying a motion to reopen where the evidence submitted was
consistent with evidence presented to the IJ, and did not show any change in
country conditions). Bhatti’s contention that the BIA applied an incorrect legal
standard in ruling on his motion to reopen is not supported by the record.
We reject Bhatti’s contention that the BIA overlooked some of his evidence,
because he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record in
its entirety. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006).
Contrary to Bhatti’s contention, there is no indication in the BIA’s order that it
failed to consider Bhatti’s claims for withholding of removal and protection under
the Convention Against Torture.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --