Hussain v. Holder
September 28, 2009
**Motion to reopen**
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hussain’s motion to reopen as untimely because he filed it nearly two years after the BIA issued its final order and did not demonstrate changed circumstances in Pakistan to meet the requirements for the exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen. In addition, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reissue its December 2004 order denying the motion to reopen, and its December
2002 order summarily affirming the immigration judge’s decision. The record shows that the motion to reopen and notice of appearance were filed only in Zahid Hussain’s name, such that the BIA properly noted that Talat Hussain
was not a party to the motion. Likewise, the record reflects that the December 2002 summary affirmance was mailed to Talat Hussain’s counsel of record.
2002 order summarily affirming the immigration judge’s decision. The record shows that the motion to reopen and notice of appearance were filed only in Zahid Hussain’s name, such that the BIA properly noted that Talat Hussain
was not a party to the motion. Likewise, the record reflects that the December 2002 summary affirmance was mailed to Talat Hussain’s counsel of record.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/09/28/05-70453.pdf
No comments yet
newimmigrationcases
