OLATEJU OLU OLABANJI, AKA Teju O. Aabanji, AKA Chris Mark Chappell, AKA Trevor… v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OLATEJU OLU OLABANJI, AKA Teju O.
Aabanji, AKA Chris Mark Chappell, AKA
Trevor Dishon, AKA Stephen Frye, AKA
Thomas Jackson, AKA Tim Jackson, AKA
Robert Kajimoto, AKA Myron Obrasnialc,
AKA Myron Obrunsniak, AKA Olateju
Olabanji, AKA Olatico Olabanji, AKA Teju
O. Olabanji, AKA Teju O. Olabans, AKA
John O. Oshin, AKA TJ, AKA Carlos
Usallan, AKA “TJ”,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71511
Agency No. A076-603-785
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 26, 2016**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
* 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).
FILED
MAY 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-71511
Olateju Olu Olabanji, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to
reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen.
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Olabanji’s second motion to
reopen because it was untimely and number-barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2),
and he failed to establish that he qualified for an exception to the time and
numerical limits for filing a motion to reopen, see Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d
988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining the BIA can deny a motion to reopen based on
changed country conditions for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for the
relief sought); Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[a]
government does not acquiesce in the torture of its citizens merely because it is
aware of torture but powerless to stop it”) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
We reject Olabanji’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider evidence and
analyze his claim properly. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (the BIA adequately
considered the evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-71511
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’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.

-- 3 of 3 --