Narayan Prasad; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NARAYAN PRASAD; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73218
Agency No. A071-784-040
A071-784-041
A071-784-045
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Narayan Prasad and his family, natives and citizens of Fiji, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion
to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
SEP 18 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-73218 2
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992
(9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely and number-barred because the successive motion was filed
over three years after the BIA’s final administrative order, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in Fiji
to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations, see
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996 (requiring movant to
produce material evidence with motion to reopen that conditions in country of
nationality had changed).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --