Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8648299
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Patel v. Mukasey
No. 8648299 · Decided March 12, 2008
No. 8648299·Ninth Circuit · 2008·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
March 12, 2008
Citation
No. 8648299
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Prakashkumar Lallubahi Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, see Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir.1999), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Patel’s second motion to reopen for failure to show prima facie eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, where Patel’s evidence of individualized risk relates to events that occurred 17 years ago, and he failed to show how the country report on India demonstrates he will be targeted for persecution. See Konstantinova, 195 F.3d at 530 . PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. THE MANDATE SHALL ISSUE FORTHWITH. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Prakashkumar Lallubahi Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Prakashkumar Lallubahi Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia.
02We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, see Konstantinova v.
03INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir.1999), and we deny the petition for review.
04The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Patel’s second motion to reopen for failure to show prima facie eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, where Patel’s evidence of individualized risk relates to events that occurred
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Prakashkumar Lallubahi Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Patel v. Mukasey in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on March 12, 2008.
Use the citation No. 8648299 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.