Sandeep 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SANDEEP KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72432
Agency No. A075-247-196
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Sandeep 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 abuse of
FILED
OCT 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-72432 2
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 seven 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); see also
Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (evidence of changed conditions must be material).
Kaur’s contention that the BIA ignored evidence is not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --