Pushpamalar Satchithananthan 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), so we deny petitioner’s
request for oral argument.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PUSHPAMALAR
SATCHITHANANTHAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70845
Agency No. A079-784-814
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Pushpamalar Satchithananthan, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, 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
FILED
FEB 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 11-70845
review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s 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 Satchithananthan’s second
untimely motion to reopen because the information in the INS letter to the Sri
Lankan government was not new and Satchithananthan otherwise failed to present
material evidence of changed circumstances in Sri Lanka to qualify for the
regulatory exception to the time and number limitations for filing a motion to
reopen. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-89 (“in order for
evidence to be ‘material,’ ‘not available,’ and not able to have ‘been discovered or
presented at the previous hearing,’ it must be ‘qualitatively different’ from the
evidence presented at the previous hearing”) (internal citation omitted).
We reject Satchithananthan’s various contentions regarding the BIA’s
review of her breach of confidentiality claim under 8 C.F.R. § 208.6.
Finally, we deny as unnecessary Satchithananthan’s motion to supplement
the opening brief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --