Carol Stephen v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney Gen- eral

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CAROL STEPHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney Gen-
eral,
Respondent.
No. 21-70475
Agency No. A072-517-028
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Carol Stephen petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have ju-
risdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010).
* 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
MAR 10 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Stephen’s motion to reopen
as untimely because it was filed more than one year after the order of removal be-
came final and Stephen failed to establish changed country conditions in Iraq to
qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reo-
pen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990–91. Nor did
the BIA abuse its discretion in determining that Stephen failed to establish prima
facie eligibility for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. See
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see also Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir.
2005) (new evidence in support of a motion to reopen must have been unavailable
at the time of the hearing and must establish prima facie eligibility for the relief
sought).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --