Prymas Nazreth Vaz; Monalisa Napolian Dias 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
PRYMAS NAZRETH VAZ;
MONALISA NAPOLIAN DIAS,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70646
Agency Nos. A075-724-257
A075-724-258
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Prymas Nazreth Vaz and Monalisa Napolian Dias, natives and citizens of
India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d
FILED
SEP 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70646 2
1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ second motion
to reopen as untimely and numerically barred where they filed it over four years
after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners
failed to establish changed conditions in India to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the time limitation and numerical bar, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii);
see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence must
demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief in order to reopen proceedings based
on changed country conditions).
Petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to meaningfully consider the
evidence submitted with the motion to reopen is belied by the record. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for petitioner to prevail
on a due process claim).
Finally, this court lacks jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contention that
their former counsel was ineffective. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678
(9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the
agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --