Shergill

MEMORANDUM **

Pradeep Shergill petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen his deportation proceeding based upon changed conditions in Fiji. Because the transitional rules apply, see Kalaw v. INS, 138 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), we have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We deny the petition.

We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1187 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc). The BIA correctly determined that Shergill failed to attach to his motion a new application and any material documentation in support of his new claim for asylum based on recent changes in conditions in Fiji. Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the unsupported motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.2 (c)(1) (motion to reopen “must be accompanied by the appropriate application for relief and all supporting documentation”); see also INS v. Wang, 450 U.S. 139, 141 , 101 S.Ct. 1027 , 67 L.Ed.2d 123 (1981); Lainez-Ortiz v. INS, 96 F.3d 393, 396 (9th Cir.1996).

Although not required to do so, the BIA also evaluated Shergill’s eligibility for asylum, finding that his application…