Shergil v. Holder
February 28, 2010
**MTR**
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Shergil’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over three years after the BIA’s final decision, and Shergil failed to establish changed country conditions in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation. In addition, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding Shergil failed to explain why the psychological report attached to his motion could not have been discovered prior to his immigration hearing.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2010/02/26/07-73793.pdf
No comments yet
newimmigrationcases
