Candan Benturk v. Eric Holder, Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
CANDAN BENTURK, No. 09-73496
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-127-162
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 6, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: REINHARDT, NOONAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Candan Benturk seeks review of the decision by the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) denying his untimely motion to reopen removal proceedings to
allow him to apply for asylum based on changed country conditions in Turkey. 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
*
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).
abuse of discretion. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005).
The BIA found inter alia that Benturk’s claims that country conditions in
Turkey have materially changed are “unduly speculative” and “unsupported by any
personal or objective evidence.” “[I]n the context of a motion to reopen, the BIA
is not required to consider allegations unsupported by affidavits or other
evidentiary material.” Patel v. INS, 741 F.2d 1134, 1137 (9th Cir. 1984).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Benturk did not
provide personal or objective evidence in support of his claims. Even taking his
asylum application as an affidavit, Benturk’s claims are speculative and
unsupported by the documentary evidence that he provides, much of which is not
relevant to establishing that he has reason to fear persecution following his return
to Turkey. In sum, Benturk has not provided sufficient evidence to show that
country conditions in Turkey are now such that he has a reasonable fear of future
persecution.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Benturk’s motion to reopen,
and Benturk’s petition is therefore DENIED.
2