Fahri Xholi v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FAHRI XHOLI,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72959
Agency No. A076-707-282
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Fahri Xholi, a native and citizen of Albania, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-72959
the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.
2010), and review de novo due process claims violations, Fernandez v. Gonzales,
439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Xholi’s motion to reopen
as untimely, where it was filed twelve years after the final order of removal, see 8
C.F.R. §1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to establish materially changed country
conditions in Albania to overcome the regulatory time limitation for filing a
motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. §1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90
(evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). We reject
Xholi’s contentions that the agency violated his due process rights by ignoring
evidence or failing to analyze his claim properly. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at
991; Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on
a due process claim).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s refusal to reopen proceedings
sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.
2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --