Oleksandr Kravchuk 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
OLEKSANDR KRAVCHUK,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74399
Agency No. A078-759-546
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Oleksandr Kravchuk, a native and citizen of Ukraine, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
APR 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74399 2
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981,
984 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kravchuk’s motion to
reopen as untimely because the motion was filed four years after the BIA’s final
decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c), and Kravchuk did not establish prima facie
eligibility for relief, see Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008)
(evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief warranting reopening
based on changed country conditions).
To the extent Kravchuk challenges the BIA’s underlying order summarily
affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, we
decline to consider his contentions because the court previously rejected them in
Kravchuk v. Mukasey, 263 F. App’x 599 (9th Cir. 2008). See Merritt v. Mackey,
932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining that under the “law of the case
doctrine,” one panel of an appellate court will not reconsider questions which
another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --