Sunil Bhandari 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SUNIL BHANDARI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70207
Agency No. A095-294-311
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.
Sunil Bhandari, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
JUL 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70207 2
denial of a motion to reopen, and de novo questions of law. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bhandari’s second motion to
reopen as time- and number-barred where the successive motion was filed nearly
four years after the BIA’s November 21, 2003, order dismissing his underlying
appeal, and Bhandari failed to demonstrate that he qualified for an exception to the
time and number limits, or for equitable tolling. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3);
Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897-98 (9th Cir. 2003). It follows that
Bhandari’s due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process
claim).
Bhandari’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --