Abbassi v. I.N.S.

Full title: Barman ABBASSI, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 25, 2002

31 F. App'x 456 (9th Cir. 2002)

Opinion

31 Fed.Appx. 456 (9th Cir. 2002) Barman ABBASSI, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. No. 01-70110. INS No. A27-628-848. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 25, 2002

Submitted February 11, 2002. ^*

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Before B. FLETCHER, T.G. NELSON, and RICHARD C. TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Barman Abbassi, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a), ¹ and we deny the petition.

1 The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA"), Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (Sept. 30, 1996), replaced this section with a new judicial review provision codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Under IIRIRA's transitional rules, however, this new provision does not apply to proceedings initiated prior to April 1, 1997 that result in a final order entered after October 30, 1996. We therefore continue to exercise jurisdiction over Abbassi's action under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). IIRIRA § 309(c)(1); see Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150-51 (9th Cir.1997).

Page 457.

We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of Abbassi's motion to reopen. See Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1187 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc). We deny Abbassi's petition for review because he filed his motion to reopen long after the 90-day deadline for filing had passed, and because he did not qualify for an exception to the deadline by offering adequate evidence of changed circumstances arising in Iran. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(c)(2)-(3)(ii). Hearsay evidence suggesting that a translator who worked on Abbassi's earlier asylum application now lives in Iran and "would get a person in trouble if he has to or wants to ..." is not material to Abbassi's asylum claim. See Elias-Zacarias v. U.S. INS, 921 F.2d 844, 854 n. 13 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that evidence is material if it "tend[s] to strengthen the alien's claim for relief ...."), rev'd on other grounds by 502 U.S. 478, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.