ASIF MUHAMMED and FARHANA ASIF v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ASIF MUHAMMED and FARHANA
ASIF,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70685
Agency Nos. A079-628-793
A079-628-794
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 13, 2018
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, EBEL,** and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners Asif Muhammed and Farhana Asif, natives and citizens of
Pakistan, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) order
denying their untimely motion to reopen based on changed country conditions. We
FILED
JUN 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable David M. Ebel, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

review the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, see
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and deny the petition.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Petitioners have
failed to show materially changed country conditions in Pakistan. Petitioners
argue that Americans and Westerners face significant risks in traveling to Pakistan.
Such risks, however, were documented in the record at Petitioners’ merits hearing.
Petitioners’ new evidence shows a continuation of the same conditions and does
not qualitatively differ from the evidence they presented originally. See Salim v.
Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2016).
Petitioner Muhammed also argues his family would be the target of violence
on account of his former employment with Western oil companies, but this
argument has been considered and rejected by the BIA and this Court. See
Muhammed v. Holder, 543 F. App’x 652, 652–53 (9th Cir. 2013). Petitioner has
failed to produce qualitatively different evidence in support of the motion to
reopen. Nor has Petitioner Muhammed produced qualitatively different evidence
about his involvement in the political party MQM-H or the risks he would face
upon return because of that involvement. Petitioner’s generalized grievance about
Pakistan’s education system does not establish any material change in country
conditions.
PETITION DENIED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --