Harvinder 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HARVINDER KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72751
Agency No. A079-268-794
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Harvinder Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her second motion to
reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894
FILED
JAN 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72751 2
(9th Cir. 2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kaur’s second motion to
reopen because it was untimely and numerically-barred, see 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c)(2), and Kaur failed to establish changed circumstances in India to
qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limit for filing motions
to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-
97 (9th Cir. 2008). Kaur’s contentions that the BIA improperly analyzed her claim
and failed to adequately explain its decision are belied by the record.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Kaur’s contentions regarding the BIA’s
February 28, 2007, order denying her first motion to reopen because this petition
for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188
(9th Cir. 2003). In addition, although Kaur contends otherwise, we lack
jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to sua sponte reopen removal
proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.
2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --