Ishri Prasad; Doreen Shalini Sukhdeo 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISHRI PRASAD; DOREEN SHALINI
SUKHDEO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72294
Agency Nos. A077-431-763
A077-431-764
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Ishri Prasad and his wife Doreen Shalini Sukhdeo, natives and citizens of
Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,
FILED
APR 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-72294 2
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 Prasad’s motion to reopen
because it was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and because Prasad failed to
present sufficient evidence of 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.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --