explaining that for the BIA to grant a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions, the petitioner must produce evidence that was not previously available
How later courts described this case
- explaining that for the BIA to grant a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions, the petitioner must produce evidence that was not previously available
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 4 2026
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RRAFMAN KOCI, No. 24-6171
Agency No.
Petitioner, A075-682-288
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 2, 2026**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, District
Judge.***
Petitioner Rrafman Koci seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) dismissal of his motion to reopen. This is Petitioner’s fifth motion to
*
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).
***
The Honorable Jeffrey Vincent Brown, United States District Judge
for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
reopen, filed more than 20 years after his final administrative order of removal was
issued. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b), and we deny the petition.
1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying equitable tolling of
Petitioner’s motion to reopen. Petitioner failed to establish “that he has been
pursuing his rights diligently,” or “that some extraordinary circumstance stood in
his way and prevented timely filing.” Bent v. Garland, 115 F.4th 934, 941 (9th
Cir. 2024). First, the alleged breach of Petitioner’s confidentiality occurred in
2001, yet he did not reference this evidence in any of the motions to reopen he
filed between 2004 and 2024. Rodriguez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th
Cir. 2021) (explaining that for the BIA to grant a motion to reopen based on
changed country conditions, the petitioner must produce evidence that was not
previously available).
Moreover, Petitioner incorrectly asserts that L-T-M v. Whitaker, 760 F.
App’x 498, 500 (9th Cir. 2019), constituted a fundamental change in asylum law.
In fact, Petitioner cites a decision from this Court that predates at least two of his
motions to reopen where we remanded the case after finding the government
breached the petitioner’s confidentiality. Owino v. Holder, 771 F.3d 527, 533–35
(9th Cir. 2014). Thus, Petitioner “has alleged no facts—before the I[mmigration]
J[udge], the BIA, or on appeal before us—suggesting a diligent pursuit of [his]
rights in the intervening years between [his] removal and [Owino]; nor has [he]
2 24-6171
shown that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely
filing of [his] motion.” See Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1224 (9th Cir. 2020)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).1
2. We do not have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s exercise of
its discretion against sua sponte reopening of Petitioner’s removal proceedings
because he has failed to allege any colorable legal or constitutional issues in the
BIA’s decision-making. Lona, 958 F.3d at 1229.
PETITION DENIED.2
1
In accordance with our determination that Petitioner’s claim is time-barred, we
decline to address the merits of his asylum claim.
2
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. The
motion for a stay of removal (Dkt. No. 27) is otherwise denied.
3 24-6171