Mohammed S. Shameem; Sharon Sabina Begum 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MOHAMMED S. SHAMEEM; SHARON
SABINA BEGUM,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71852
Agency Nos. A078-670-558
A078-670-559
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Mohammed S. Shameem and Sharon Sabina Begum, natives and citizens of
Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
OCT 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-71852 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a
motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We
deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over seven years after the BIA’s
final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to present sufficient
evidence of changed circumstances in Fiji to qualify for the regulatory exception to
the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence of changed
circumstances must be qualitatively different from what could have been presented
at the prior hearing). In light of this conclusion, the BIA did not abuse its
discretion in not addressing petitioners’ arguments regarding a pattern or practice
of persecution of Indo-Fijians and Muslims, or their claims for withholding of
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to consider evidence
because they have not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record.
See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006). We also reject
petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its

-- 2 of 3 --

09-71852 3
decision. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (“[t]he [BIA] does not have to write an
exegesis on every contention”) (internal quotes omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --