Osama Abdo Mkhaeil 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
OSAMA ABDO MKHAEIL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70705
Agency No. A079-682-941
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Osama Abdo Mkhaeil, a native and citizen of Syria, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
JUN 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70705 2
Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.
2003), we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction over Mkhaeil’s due process claims and his contentions
regarding changed country conditions in Syria because he failed to exhaust these
issues before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mkhaeil’s motion to reopen
because the motion was filed more than two and a half years after the BIA’s order
dismissing his underlying appeal, and did not fall within any exception to the
90-day filing limitation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3); see also Matter of
Velarde-Pacheco, 23 I. & N. Dec. 253, 256 (BIA 2002) (motion to reopen to adjust
status based on marriage to a U.S. citizen may be granted if, inter alia, the motion
is timely filed).
We do not consider Mkhaeil’s remaining contentions regarding the BIA’s
December 8, 2004, order because these contentions were rejected in Mkhaeil v.
Gonzales, 05-70096 (9th Cir. Feb. 26. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --