Khushvir Singh Suman; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KHUSHVIR SINGH SUMAN; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74600
Agency Nos. A095-410-284
A095-410-285
A095-410-286
A095-410-287
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Khushvir Singh Suman, Savita Suman, and their children, citizens of India,
petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction
FILED
APR 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74600 2
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Malty v. Ashcroft,
381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen because the motion was filed more than three years after the BIA’s order
dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners
failed to demonstrate materially changed circumstances in India to qualify for the
regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see id. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also
Malty, 381 F.3d at 945 (“The critical question is . . . whether circumstances have
changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate
claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.”).
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --