BABER HABIB, AKA Barber Habibullah v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BABER HABIB, AKA Barber Habibullah,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73755
Agency No. A095-736-306
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted December 11, 2015
Resubmitted June 10, 2016
Pasadena, California
Before: NOONAN, LUCERO** , and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Baber Habib, a native and citizen of Pakistan, appeals from the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen his removal
proceedings on the basis of changed circumstances in Pakistan. 8 C.F.R.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Carlos F. Lucero, Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUN 14 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
§ 1003.23(b)(3). Reviewing the BIA’s determination for abuse of discretion, we
deny the petition. Singh v. I.N.S., 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002).
In February 2010, Habib requested and was granted pre-conclusion
voluntary departure. 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(b). Three months later, he timely filed a
motion to reopen his removal proceedings on the ground of new information
regarding terrorist activity in his native city of Lahore. Habib claimed that
sometime after February 2010, his family members told him that terrorists were
attacking United States and Pakistani military targets with increasing frequency.
Habib alleged fear of persecution on account of his long residence in the United
States and the fact that he has relatives in the Pakistani military.
The bulk of the evidence that Habib submitted in support of his motion to
reopen was available and could have been discovered at the time of his removal
proceedings. Many of his exhibits referenced events that occurred in 2009. Overall,
the evidence reflects a history of terrorist activity targeting Pakistani and American
military and civilian targets that began before Habib’s February 2010 hearing. The
evidence submitted does not show that conditions in Lahore have deteriorated to an
extent that “a petitioner who previously did not have legitimate claim for asylum
now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.” Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d
942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
Habib’s motion to reopen. See Singh, 295 F.3d at 1039.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --