Gurjit Kaur v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURJIT KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-75086
Agency No. A079-806-290
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Gurjit Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
APR 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-75086 2
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992
(9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kaur’s motion to reopen as
untimely where the motion was filed over four years after the BIA’s final decision,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Kaur failed to present sufficient evidence of
changed circumstances in India to qualify for an exception to the time limit, see 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (requiring movant to
produce material evidence that conditions in the country of nationality had
changed). Kaur’s contention that the BIA failed to adequately explain its
reasoning is belied by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990
(9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA “does not have to write an exegesis on every contention”).
Further, we decline to consider Kaur’s contentions regarding the
immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination because the court previously
rejected them in Kaur v. Mukasey, No. 04-71978 (9th Cir. Mar. 5, 2008). See
Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining that under the
‘law of the case doctrine,’one panel of an appellate court will not reconsider
questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --