Harjinder Kumar 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HARJINDER KUMAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71392
Agency No. A071-944-709
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Harjinder Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
MAY 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-71392 2
for abuse of discretion, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008),
and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kumar’s second motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over a year and a half after the
BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Kumar 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); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-
97 (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief in order to reopen
proceedings based on changed country conditions).
This court lacks jurisdiction to review Kumar’s contention that his former
counsel was ineffective. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004)
(court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).
Finally, Kumar’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --