Sarabjit Singh Takhar 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SARABJIT SINGH TAKHAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72766
Agency No. A098-847-874
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Sarabjit Singh Takhar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
DEC 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-72766 2
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Takhar’s motion to reopen
as untimely where it was filed two years after the BIA’s final order, see
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Takhar failed to demonstrate materially changed
circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit, see
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-89 (new evidence must be
qualitatively different from the evidence presented at the prior proceeding to be
material).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --