Dharmesh Balubhai Patel v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DHARMESH BALUBHAI PATEL,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70836
Agency No. A072-176-625
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 6, 2021**
Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Dharmesh Balubhai Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder,
* 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
DEC 8 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we review de novo due process claims,
Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Patel’s motion to reopen as
untimely and numerically barred. His motion exceeded the one-motion limit and
was not filed within 90 days of the Board’s final order issued on June 13, 2012. Patel
has failed to establish materially changed circumstances in India to qualify for the
regulatory exception to the filing deadline or numerical bar. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990–91 (evidence must be “qualitatively
different” to warrant reopening). Patel’s first motion to reopen included very similar
evidence of corruption, violence by religious extremists, and police brutality. The
evidence Patel submitted does not show that conditions in India are qualitatively
different from those at the time of his earlier hearing. The BIA did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion to reopen.
Because Patel has not shown error in the BIA’s decision, we also reject his
due process claim. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --