
    Irfan Pervai BHATTI, a.k.a. Irfan Pervaiz Bhatti, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71986.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 9, 2012.
    Dominic Edward Capeci, I, Esquire, Law Offices of Dominic E. Capeci, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Christopher C. Fuller, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Irfan Pervai Bhatti, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bhatti’s motion to reopen, where Bhatti failed to demonstrate a change in country conditions in Pakistan. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Lin, 588 F.3d at 988-89 (BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reopen where the evidence submitted was consistent with evidence presented to the IJ, and did not show any change in country conditions). Bhatti’s contention that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard in ruling on his motion to reopen is not supported by the record.

We reject Bhatti’s contention that the BIA overlooked some of his evidence, because he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record in its entirety. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006). Contrary to Bhatti’s contention, there is no indication in the BIA’s order that it failed to consider Bhatti’s claims for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     