Konstantin Georgiyevich Buldakov v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KONSTANTIN GEORGIYEVICH
BULDAKOV,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72921
Agency No. A098-762-951
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 4, 2014
Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and ROTHSTEIN, Senior
District Judge.**
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except
as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
FILED
JULY 1 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Konstantin Buldakov, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions 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 review for
abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen. Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423
F.3d 977, 983 (9th Cir. 2005). Buldakov’s petition is denied on the ground that
Buldakov has failed to establish changed circumstances that would exempt his
motion from the applicable time limitation.
The parties are familiar with the facts, as set forth in the BIA’s decision, so we
need not review them here. Section 240(c)(7)(C)(i) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (“Act”), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), requires that motions to
reopen be filed within 90 days of the final administrative order of removal.
Buldakov filed his motion to reopen outside the 90-day window.
Along with his motion to reopen, Buldakov filed an asylum application
seeking an exemption from the 90-day limitation. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii)
specifies that there is no time limit for asylum-seekers moving to reopen if the
asylum-seeker can show “changed country conditions” through material evidence
that was unavailable at the previous proceeding.
We conclude that based on the evidence before it the BIA did not abuse its
discretion when it concluded that Buldakov failed to establish changed conditions in

-- 2 of 3 --

Russia. Because Buldakov could not take advantage of the exemption to the 90-day
limit, the BIA denied his motion to reopen as untimely. We agree and affirm.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --