Manjit 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MANJIT KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71198
Agency No. A073-411-275
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Manjit 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 an abuse
FILED
SEP 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-71198 2
of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538
F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). 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 order,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Kaur failed to present sufficient evidence of
changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time
limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). The BIA did not
abuse its discretion in concluding that the psychological evaluations did not
overcome the prior adverse credibility finding. See Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97
(evidence was irrelevant in light of the agency’s previous adverse credibility
findings).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in not addressing Kaur’s CAT claim
separately because Kaur failed to point to any other evidence, apart from her not
credible testimony, that would make her new evidence relevant to showing
changed conditions in India. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th
Cir. 2003).
Finally, Kaur’s contentions that the BIA failed to address her equitable
tolling argument on the merits and that remand is warranted because the BIA

-- 2 of 3 --

09-71198 3
denied her motion as number-barred and did not reach the merits are belied by the
record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --