Opinion
17-70330
08-11-2022
HARPINDER S. CHAHAL; GURMEET K. CHAHAL, Petitioners, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted August 9, 2022 [**] Seattle, Washington
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency Nos. A078-361-295 A078-361-296
Before: CHRISTEN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Petitioner Harpinder Chahal and his wife, Gurmeet Chahal, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) order denying their fifth motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Harpinder Chahal is the lead Petitioner; his wife seeks derivative relief. We refer only to the lead Petitioner for simplicity.
We "review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion." Hernandez-Ortiz v. Garland, 32 F.4th 794, 800 (9th Cir. 2022). The BIA's decision "should be left undisturbed unless it is 'arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.'" Yan Rong Zhao v. Holder, 728 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chahal's fifth motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), or in finding that Chahal failed to present sufficient evidence to qualify for the changed country conditions exception, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). Chahal's newly introduced evidence does not overcome the agency's prior adverse credibility finding, and he does not challenge that finding. Therefore, his new evidence is immaterial. See Greenwood v. Garland, 36 F.4th 1232, 1236 (9th Cir. 2022) ("The BIA can thus reject a motion to reopen by relying on a previous adverse credibility determination if that earlier finding factually undermines the petitioner's new claim."); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 994, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that an underlying adverse credibility determination regarding a claim of past persecution rendered evidence of changed country conditions immaterial).
The joint motion to withdraw the request for judicial administrative closure is granted. The motions to hold this case in abeyance and for judicial administrative closure are denied as moot.
[*] 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).