Mohammed Ramzan Khan; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MOHAMMED RAMZAN KHAN; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74625
Agency Nos. A079-610-497
A079-610-498
A079-610-499
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Mohammed Ramzan Khan and his family, natives and citizens of Fiji,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
JUN 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74625 2
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Lin v.
Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 2009), and review due process claims de novo,
Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen where the motion was filed over two years after the BIA’s final order, see 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish changed country
conditions in Fiji 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.”).
Petitioners’ contention that the BIA did not adequately explain its decision is
not supported by the record. In addition, we reject petitioners’ contention that the
BIA failed to consider all relevant evidence submitted with the motion to reopen.
See Larita-Martinez, 220 F.3d at 1095-96 (holding that absent evidence to the
contrary, the BIA is presumed to have considered all the evidence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --