Nikolay Krastev Gechev 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NIKOLAY KRASTEV GECHEV,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71719
Agency No. A072-439-919
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 24, 2013**
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Nikolay Krastev Gechev, a native and citizen of Bulgaria, 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 BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
FILED
JUL 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-71719 2
983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and review de novo claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings, Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010).
We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gechev’s untimely motion
to reopen because he did not establish changed circumstances in Bulgaria to
qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89, 991 (evidence of conditions
similar to those in evidence at prior proceedings was not “qualitatively different”;
exception under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) is only for changed circumstances
arising in country of nationality, not self-induced change in personal
circumstances). We reject Gechev’s contention that the BIA erred in its
consideration of his motion under Judulang v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 476 (2011).
Finally, we reject Gechev’s contention that the BIA denied him due process
in refusing to reissue its December 18, 2002, order dismissing his appeal. See Lata
v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on due
process challenge to proceedings); Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th
Cir. 2007) (petitioner did not show due diligence where he did not consult new
attorney until about 5 months after becoming suspicious of prior attorney’s fraud).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --