Mohammad Mamun Hossain 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).
KV/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAMMAD MAMUN HOSSAIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72816
Agency No. A072-856-294
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Mohammad Mamun Hossain, native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
MAR 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KV/Research 07-72816 2
discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hossain’s second motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed nearly two years after the BIA’s
prior decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Hossain failed to establish changed
country conditions in Bangladesh to qualify for the regulatory exception to the
time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381
F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The critical question is . . . whether circumstances
have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate
claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --