Sidhartha Madhu Bhise v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SIDHARTHA MADHU BHISE,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71430
Agency No. A088-492-940
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Sidhartha Madhu Bhise, native and citizen of India, 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
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and de novo claims of due
* 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
AUG 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-71430
process violations in removal proceedings, including claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny the petition for review.
We decline to consider any challenge to the agency’s underlying denial of
relief because this Court has already decided those issues. See Bhise v. Lynch, 648
Fed. Appx. 650 (9th Cir. 2016).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Bhise’s motion to reopen
based on ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to show prejudice. See
Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793-94 (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim, petitioner must show counsel’s performance was so inadequate it may have
affected the outcome of proceedings).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Bhise’s untimely motion to
reopen because Bhise failed to establish materially changed country conditions in
India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2)-(3); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 987-90 (9th Cir. 2010)
(petitioner failed to show evidence was “qualitatively different” to warrant
reopening).
We reject Bhise’s contentions that the BIA applied the wrong legal standard

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-71430
in its analysis or failed to consider record evidence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --