Hassan Tashakori 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HASSAN TASHAKORI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70096
Agency No. A077-355-228
MEMORANDUM*
HASSAN TASHAKORI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72301
Agency No. A077-355-228
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
FILED
JUN 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Richard Seeborg, District Judge for the U.S. District***
Court for Northern California, sitting by designation.
2
Submitted June 4, 2012**
Pasadena, California
Before: TROTT and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and SEEBORG, District Judge.***
Hassan Tashakori seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) denial of two motions to reopen removal proceedings. Tashakori, a
political opponent of the regime in his native Iran, overstayed his visa, and an
administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granted withholding of removal from Iran, but
denied him asylum because he was determined to be firmly resettled in Germany.
The ALJ also denied withholding of removal to, and asylum from, Germany.
Tashakori’s first motion purported to submit new evidence of probable
persecution in Germany. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the
motion on the grounds that it did not present material, previously unavailable
evidence. INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988).
Tashakori filed a second motion to reopen based on a letter he received from
the German consulate notifying him of the loss of his legal residency status. The
fact that Tashakori voluntarily allowed his German residency to expire by failing to
return does not defeat the prior finding that he is firmly resettled. Vang v. INS, 146

-- 2 of 3 --

3
F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 1998). Additionally, the BIA correctly determined his
motion to be time and number barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
The petition for review is DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --