Petar Donchev Bakalov v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PETAR DONCHEV BAKALOV,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71856
Agency No. A096-355-758
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Petar Donchev Bakalov, a native and citizen of Bulgaria, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his fourth motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi
* 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
JUN 24 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-71856
v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bakalov’s fourth motion to
reopen where it was filed nine years after his order of removal became final, see 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Bakalov failed to establish he qualified for an exception
to the time and number limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008). We
reject Bakalov’s contention that the BIA did not consider and assess the relevant
evidence. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (BIA adequately considered the
evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).
We deny Bakalov’s request for fees and decline to consider Bakalov’s due
process claim. See Bazuaye v. INS, 79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues
raised for the first time in the reply brief are waived.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --