Kirin Devi, a.k.a. Kiran Devi, a.k.a. Rita Patel 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KIRIN DEVI, a.k.a. Kiran Devi, a.k.a. Rita
Patel,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72638
Agency No. A096-191-210
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.
Kirin Devi, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
SEP 30 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72638 2
abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Malty v. Ashcroft, 381
F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Devi’s motion to reopen as
untimely where the motion was filed more than five years after the BIA’s final
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Devi failed to present sufficient evidence of
changed circumstances in India 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); see also Malty,
381 F.3d at 945 (“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 persecution.”). Devi’s contention that the
BIA failed to consider all the evidence she presented with the motion to reopen is
not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --