David Mungai Njenga 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DAVID MUNGAI NJENGA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74044
Agency No. A091-738-632
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 10, 2013**
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
David Mungai Njenga, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings
conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
JUN 18 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 08-74044
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Njenga’s untimely motion to
reopen because he failed to establish material evidence of changed circumstances
in Kenya. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (a
petitioner’s evidence lacks the required materiality where it simply recounts
generalized conditions that fail to demonstrate “that her predicament is appreciably
different from the dangers faced by her fellow citizens”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --