Shameem
Shameem v. Holder
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Mohammed S. Shameem and Sharon Sabina Begum, natives and citizens of Fiji, *242 petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over seven years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in Fiji to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(ii); see Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir.2010) (evidence of changed circumstances must be qualitatively different from what could have been presented at the prior hearing). In light of this conclusion, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in not addressing petitioners’ arguments regarding a pattern or practice of persecution of Indo-Fijians and Muslims,…