
    Hassan TASHAKORI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. Hassan Tashakori, Petitioner, v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 07-70096, 08-72301.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 4, 2012.
    
    Filed June 12, 2012.
    Ruben N. Sarkisian, Esq., Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Hillel Smith Fax, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: TROTT and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and SEEBORG, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Richard Seeborg, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Northern California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hassan Tashakori seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of two motions to reopen removal proceedings. Tashakori, a political opponent of the regime in his native Iran, overstayed his visa, and an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granted withholding of removal from Iran, but denied him asylum because he was determined to be firmly resettled in Germany. The ALJ also denied withholding of removal to, and asylum from, Germany.

Tashakori’s first motion purported to submit new evidence of probable persecution in Germany. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion on the grounds that it did not present material, previously unavailable evidence. INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988).

Tashakori filed a second motion to reopen based on a letter he received from the German consulate notifying him of the loss of his legal residency status. The fact that Tashakori voluntarily allowed his German residency to expire by failing to return does not defeat the prior finding that he is firmly resettled. Vang v. INS, 146 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir.1998). Additionally, the BIA correctly determined his motion to be time and number barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

The petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     