Anwarul Hassan v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANWARUL HASSAN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72560
Agency No. A070-914-854
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 20, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, BERZON, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Anwarul Hassan (“Hassan”),1 a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his
third motion to reopen. We deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part.
* 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).
1 The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to amend the caption to reflect
Petitioner’s name as Anwarul Hassan.
FILED
AUG 8 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Hassan’s motion
to reopen is barred by time and numerical limits. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2);
Singh v. Holder, 658 F.3d 879, 884–85 (9th Cir. 2011). Hassan filed his third
motion to reopen on October 24, 2016, more than two decades after the
Immigration Judge’s decision finding him deportable. He did not argue in his
motion that he is eligible for any of the exceptions to the filing limits. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3). As the government maintains, we may not consider the
unexhausted arguments regarding ineffective assistance of counsel and asylum
raised for the first time in his opening brief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); cf. Santos-
Zacaria v. Garland, 143 S. Ct. 1103, 1116 (2023).
2. To the extent that Hassan challenges the BIA’s decision to not use its sua
sponte authority to reopen proceedings, we lack jurisdiction to consider this
challenge, as Hassan does not identify any legal or constitutional error with the
BIA’s determination that no “exceptional situation” warrants reopening. See
Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 587–88 (9th Cir. 2016).
DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.

-- 2 of 2 --