Muhammad Parvez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MUHAMMAD PARVEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70596
Agency No. A046-988-737
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Muhammad Parvez, a native and citizen of Pakistan, 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, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and
FILED
MAY 16 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Parvez’s motion to reopen
because it was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Parvez failed to establish
materially changed circumstances in Pakistan to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the time limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3); see also He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2007) (The
BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying motion where petitioners “provided
insufficient support to establish changed circumstances”); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at
996 (setting forth requirements for prevailing on a motion to reopen based on
changed country conditions). Contrary to Parvez’s contentions, the BIA did not
otherwise abuse its discretion in denying his motion. See Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 992
(“This Court defers to the Board’s exercise of discretion unless it acted arbitrarily,
irrationally or contrary to law.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-70596 2

-- 2 of 2 --