Johal v. Holder , 376 F. App'x 680 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RANJIT SINGH JOHAL, No. 07-72357
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-402-936
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010 **
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Ranjit Singh Johal, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying Johal’s motion to reopen
and reconsider. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and reconsider, Cano-Merida
*
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).
v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Johal’s motion to reopen and
reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s prior decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1), and Johal did not demonstrate
that the polygraph evidence submitted was unavailable or incapable of being
discovered at the time of his removal hearing, see Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735,
738 (9th Cir.2007); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
Additionally, the BIA considered Johal’s new evidence regarding his asylum
claim and acted within its broad discretion in determining the evidence was
insufficient to establish a prima facie showing of changed country conditions in
India. See 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.”).
To the extent Johal challenges the BIA’s April 2, 2003 order, we lack
jurisdiction because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See
Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 07-72357