Azeez Jimmy Imohi v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AZEEZ JIMMY IMOHI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71104
Agency No. A092-905-051
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Azeez Jimmy Imohi, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se 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
FILED
MAY 20 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi
v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Imohi’s untimely motion to
reopen because it considered the record and acted within its broad discretion in
determining the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Toufighi v.
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to establish
prima facie eligibility for relief and discussing consequences of lack of credibility).
We reject Imohi’s contentions that the BIA improperly analyzed his claim.
Further, we do not consider any challenge Imohi raises to the agency’s
underlying denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture, in light of our decision in Imohi v. INS, No.
94-70705, 1996 WL 297612 (9th Cir. June 05, 1996).
Finally, we reject Imohi’s collateral estoppel argument.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-71107

-- 2 of 2 --