Shamsun Nahar Iqbal; 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).
AR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAMSUN NAHAR IQBAL; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73930
Agency Nos. A075-691-627
A075-691-004
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Shamsun Nahar Iqbal and her minor son, natives and citizens of Bangladesh,
petition pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision
denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed
FILED
FEB 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AR/Research 07-73930 2
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we dismiss in
part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Iqbal’s challenge to an immigration judge’s
April 19, 2001 decision to deny Iqbal asylum and related relief. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(1) (requiring petition for review to be filed within 30 days of final order
of removal).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Iqbal’s motion to reopen as
untimely and number-barred because it was Iqbal’s third motion to reopen and it
was filed four years after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final
order of removal); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A) (a party may file only one motion to
reopen), and Iqbal failed to establish changed circumstances in Bangladesh to
qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations, see
Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --