12-73397•Ahmed Masood; Shamsuda Begum v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General
12-73397Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit22 de mar. de 2018
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AHMED MASOOD; SHAMSUDA
BEGUM,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73397
Agency Nos. A071-583-668,
A071-583-669
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Ahmed Masood and Shamsuda Begum, natives and citizens of Bangladesh,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
* 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).
FILED
MAR 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 12-73397
reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ third untimely
motion to reopen where petitioners failed to present evidence of materially
changed country conditions in Bangladesh to qualify for the regulatory exception
to the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987
(in order for evidence to be material, it must be qualitatively different from the
evidence presented at the previous hearing. We reject petitioners’ contention that
the BIA failed to give adequate reasoning for its decision.
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contention regarding their
membership in a disfavored group because they failed to raise it to the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 676-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion is mandatory
and jurisdictional).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
-- 2 of 2 --
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.