Sanjeev Deepak 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SANJEEV DEEPAK,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72642
Agency No. A078-673-357
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Sanjeev Deepak, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se 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
SEP 30 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72642 2
abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Malty v. Ashcroft, 381
F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Deepak’s motion to reopen
as untimely where the motion was filed more than seven years after the BIA’s final
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Deepak 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); 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 persecution.”) Deepak’s
contention that the BIA failed to consider all the evidence he presented with the
motion to reopen is not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --