Uma Deo; Veena Kumari Deo; 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
KAD/Research 07-71825
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UMA DEO; VEENA KUMARI DEO; et
al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71825
Agency Nos. A076-851-473
A076-851-474
A076-851-475
A076-851-476
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Uma Deo, his wife Veena Kumari Deo, and their two children, natives and
citizens of Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order denying Deo’s motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction
FILED
NOV 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KAD/Research 07-71825 2
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
motion to reopen, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny
the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Deo’s motion to reopen
because Deo’s motion was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), Deo failed to
establish changed circumstances in Fiji 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); Malty v.
Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (“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 future
persecution.”), and Deo did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility for asylum and
withholding of removal, see Ordonez 345 F.3d at 785. We reject Deo’s contention
that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to discuss all the evidence submitted
with the motion to reopen. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603-04 (9th
Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --