Aderemi Emmanuel Atanda 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ADEREMI EMMANUEL ATANDA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71350
Agency No. A028-329-199
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Aderemi Emmanuel Atanda, a native and citizen of Nigeria, 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.
FILED
APR 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-71350 2
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez
v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
We have jurisdiction to review Atanda’s motion to reopen pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) & (D). See Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 998-
99 (9th Cir. 2007).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Atanda’s motion to reopen
as untimely where his motion was filed over a year after the BIA’s final order, see
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Atanda failed to present sufficient evidence of
changed circumstances in Nigeria to qualify for the regulatory exception to the
time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d
942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004).
We lack jurisdiction to review Atanda’s contentions regarding the BIA’s
December 8, 2006, order, because this petition for review is not timely as to that
order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
Atanda’s contentions that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to discuss
all the evidence submitted with the motion to reopen fail, because Atanda has not
overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record. See Fernandez v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006).

-- 2 of 3 --

08-71350 3
We do not consider the exhibits attached to the opening brief, which were
not a part of the original administrative record, because our review of the BIA’s
order is confined to the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 964
(9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (evidence outside record may be considered only if BIA
considered it, or if BIA abused its discretion in denying motion to consider it).
Atanda’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --