Mohammed Khan v. Jefferson Sessions
Mohammed Kafiullah KHAN; Feroza Kahn; Nazli Khan; Faizan Khan; Usman Khan, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Johnnie B. Rawlinson (author), Morgan Christen, Bencivengo
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 09 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAMMED KAFIULLAH KHAN; No. 11-71747 FEROZA KAHN; NAZLI KHAN; FAIZAN KHAN; USMAN KHAN, Agency Nos. A097-548-943 A097-548-944 Petitioners, A097-548-945 A097-548-946 v. A097-548-947 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 6, 2018** Seattle, Washington Before: RAWLINSON and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and BENCIVENGO,*** District Judge.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. Muhammad Kafiullah Khan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his motion to reopen based on a change in country conditions in Pakistan after the date of Khan’s asylum hearing.1 Reviewing for abuse of discretion, we affirm. See Martinez- Hernandez v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2015) (reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion).
The BIA denied the motion to reopen primarily on the basis that the motion was based on “incidents or threats that occurred prior to [Khan’s] departure from Pakistan.” See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016)
(noting that the petitioner must demonstrate “that circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution”) (emphasis added)
(citation omitted).
The BIA also noted that the news articles submitted by Khan reported recent incidents of violence at the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, with no showing that these incidents relate in any way to Khan or his family members. See id.
(concluding that evidence of general violence does not suffice to establish changed 1 The claims of Khan’s wife and children are deriviative of his claim and succeed or fail accordingly. 2 country conditions directed toward the group of which the petitioner is a member).
We cannot say that this determination by the BIA was arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law. See Martinez-Hernandez, 778 F.3d at 1088.
PETITION DENIED.