Katija Bahar Hazem v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KATIJA BAHAR HAZEM,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70207
Agency No. A098-533-029
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: BYBEE and BEA, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.***
Katija Bahar Hazem petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) decision denying her motion to reopen proceedings. We deny the petition.
FILED
JUL 03 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).
*** The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the U.S. Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Hazem, a native of Afghanistan and a citizen of Germany, was admitted to
the United States on May 11, 2004. Hazem remained in the United States beyond
her authorized stay, and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) served her
with a notice to appear. On September 8, 2005, Hazem filed an application for
asylum and withholding of removal. The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied the
applications and ordered Hazem removed to Germany.
Hazem appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ without opinion on July
18, 2006. Hazem filed a petition for review with this court, which was denied
when the court found that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s findings. Hazem
v. Mukasey, 309 F. App’x 178 (9th Cir. 2009).
On April 3, 2009, Hazem filed a motion with the BIA to re-open her
proceedings, arguing that the “fact that the Respondent is now [a] derivative on her
husband’s application[] is the functional equivalent of [] changed country
conditions.” The BIA found that Hazem’s motion was untimely, because it was
filed on April 3, 2009, more than 90 days after the final administrative decision
was issued by the BIA on July 18, 2006. The BIA found that Hazem had not
shown any cause to excuse the late filing based on any statutory or regulatory
exception. The BIA denied Hazem’s motion on December 24, 2009. Hazem
petitions for review of that decision.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

This court reviews BIA rulings on motions to reopen for abuse of discretion,
and will reverse only if the BIA acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005).
Hazem contends that she has been listed as a derivative beneficiary on her
husband’s asylum application, and that this fact should be considered changed
circumstances arising in Germany that excuse the late filing within the meaning of
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). The BIA found that being listed as a derivative
beneficiary on another alien’s asylum application may qualify as a change in
personal circumstances but cannot constitute changed circumstances arising in
Germany. This finding is not irrational, arbitrary, or contrary to law. Hazem filed
her motion to re-open almost three years after the final administrative decision, and
has not shown any changed circumstances in Germany within the meaning of 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). To the extent Hazem seeks review of the BIA’s refusal
to invoke its authority to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte pursuant to 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), we lack jurisdiction. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 993
n.8 (9th Cir. 2008) (“We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s refusal to reopen
removal proceedings sua sponte.”).
Therefore, we deny the petition for review.
DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --