Taimorian

Taimorian v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Good Law
31 F. App'x 409
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 20, 2002No. 98-70083; INS No. A70-301-288California374 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Haverj Taimorian appeals the Board of Immigration’s (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Because the facts are well-known to the parties, we do not repeat them here. Our jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Taimorian’s motion arises under the old § 106(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). 2 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322 , 112 S.Ct. 719 , 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992).

The BIA correctly found that Taimorian’s motion to reopen was untimely because he filed it more than ninety days after a final administrative decision was issued in his case. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.2 (c)(2). The exception to the statute of limitations for “changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality,” 8 C.F.R. § 3.2 (c)(3)(h), does not apply because none of the evidence proffered by Taimorian shows that conditions in Iran have changed since his asylum claim was adjudicated. We must therefore affirm the BIA’s denial of Taimorian’s motion.

The Immigration Judge granted Taimorian voluntary departure within thirty days. This period will…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.