Subindu Barua v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUBINDU BARUA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70122
Agency No. A095-629-943
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Subindu Barua, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
JUN 01 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988,
992 (9th Cir. 2007) . We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Barua’s motion to reopen as
untimely, where he filed the motion more than two years after his final
administrative order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and failed to provide
sufficient evidence of materially changed country conditions to invoke the
exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi, 538 F.3d
at 996 (setting forth requirements for prevailing on a motion to reopen based on
changed country conditions).
Barua’s contentions that the BIA ignored evidence and misstated evidentiary
standards are not supported by the record.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Barua’s challenge to the BIA’s 2011
dismissal of his direct appeal because this petition is not timely as to that order.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see also Stone v. I.N.S., 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995).
Respondent’s motion to take judicial notice of filings made in petitioner’s
prior petition for review to this court (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied as
unnecessary.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
15-70122 2

-- 2 of 2 --