Sarup Lal v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SARUP LAL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71357
Agency No. A079-290-266
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Sarup Lal, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his third motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
FILED
DEC 6 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lal’s third motion to reopen
as untimely and number-barred where the motion was filed over six years after the
BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Lal failed to present sufficient
evidence of changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception
to the time and number limits for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89.
We reject Lal’s contention that the BIA’s typographical error constituted a
misapplication or misstatement of the law. We also reject Lal’s contention that the
BIA erred by considering Lal’s request for humanitarian asylum solely under its
sua sponte authority.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --