Bahadar Ram Lakha v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BAHADAR RAM LAKHA,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 19-71830
Agency No. A029-904-467
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Bahadar Ram Lakha, a native and citizen of India, 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 denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions
* 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
JAN 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-71830
of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny
the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lakha’s fifth untimely
motion to reopen removal proceedings because Lakha failed to establish that he
qualified for an exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen. See
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.
2008) (petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for eligibility, where
underlying adverse credibility determination rendered evidence of changed
circumstances immaterial). We reject as unsupported by the record Lakha’s
contention that the BIA ignored evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of his
claim.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lakha’s motion to reopen
based on ineffective assistance of counsel where he failed to establish prejudice
from the allegedly deficient performance of his former attorneys. See Rojas-
Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir. 2003) (petitioner failed to establish
prejudice where he presented no plausible grounds for relief).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lakha’s motion to reopen
and terminate proceedings, where Lakha’s contention that the immigration court
lacked jurisdiction over his proceedings is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-71830
958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (omission of certain information from a notice to
appear can be cured for jurisdictional purposes by later hearing notice).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is otherwise
denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --