Amarjit Singh Aujla 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
AMARJIT SINGH AUJLA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71443
Agency No. A079-400-683
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.
Amarjit Singh Aujla, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
SEP 30 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71443 2
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 Aujla’s second motion to
reopen as untimely and number-barred because the motion was filed over five
years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Aujla failed to
establish materially changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the time and numerical limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89 (evidence of changed
circumstances must be qualitatively different from what could have been presented
at prior hearing).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --