Jasvinder 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JASVINDER KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-75226
Agency No. A078-642-533
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Jasvinder Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her sixth motion to reopen.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
JUL 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-75226 2
discretion, Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Kaur’s sixth motion to
reopen as untimely and numerically barred where the motion was filed more than
90 days after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Kaur failed to
establish changed country conditions in India to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the time and number limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see
also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (“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.”).
To the extent Kaur challenges the BIA’s January 28, 2003, order summarily
affirming the immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination, we lack
jurisdiction because her petition for review is not timely as to that order. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua
sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v.
INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --