Mudiaga Urie v. Loretta E. Lynch
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Mudiaga Obijuru Urie, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Urie’s motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where the motion was filed over six years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1008.2 (c)(2), and Urie failed to demonstrate material changed circumstances in Nigeria to qualify for a regulatory exception to the time and number limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991-92 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). We reject Urie’s contentions that the BIA failed to adequately review the evidence and improperly considered the 2005 country report. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).