Opinion
No. 19-71830
01-27-2021
BAHADAR RAM LAKHA, Petitioner, v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A029-904-467 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Bahadar Ram Lakha, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lakha's fifth untimely motion to reopen removal proceedings because Lakha failed to establish that he qualified for an exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for eligibility, where underlying adverse credibility determination rendered evidence of changed circumstances immaterial). We reject as unsupported by the record Lakha's contention that the BIA ignored evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of his claim.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lakha's motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel where he failed to establish prejudice from the allegedly deficient performance of his former attorneys. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir. 2003) (petitioner failed to establish prejudice where he presented no plausible grounds for relief).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lakha's motion to reopen and terminate proceedings, where Lakha's contention that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over his proceedings is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (omission of certain information from a notice to appear can be cured for jurisdictional purposes by later hearing notice).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.