Ganesh Bahadur Gurung 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GANESH BAHADUR GURUNG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73837
Agency No. A075-758-987
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Ganesh Bahadur Gurung, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
JUL 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-73837 2
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v.
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gurung’s motion to reopen
as untimely because the motion was filed over five years after the BIA’s final
decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Gurung did not establish prima facie
eligibility for relief, see Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (evidence must demonstrate
prima facie eligibility for relief warranting reopening based on changed country
conditions).
We reject Gurung’s challenges to the underlying denial of relief by the
immigration judge and the BIA, because those issues were decided by the court in
Gurung v. Gonzales, No. 03-72571 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --