Kulwinder 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KULWINDER KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70909
Agency No. A072-679-233
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Kulwinder Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion
FILED
JAN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LR/Research 07-70909 2
the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894
(9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kaur’s motion to reopen
because the motion was filed three years after the BIA’s final removal 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, see
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.
2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --