Sanjaline Radhika Shankar; Roneel Shankar; Bijai Kumari Shankar 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SANJALINE RADHIKA SHANKAR;
RONEEL SHANKAR;
BIJAI KUMARI SHANKAR,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73210
Agency Nos. A072-670-352
A072-670-353
A072-670-354
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.
Sanjaline Radhika Shankar, Roneel Shankar, and Bijai Kumari Shankar,
natives and citizens of Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We
FILED
JAN 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-73210 2
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the
BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th
Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over six years after the BIA’s final
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners 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.”). We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA applied the wrong
legal standard in analyzing whether there was material evidence of a change in
conditions in Fiji. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). We also reject petitioners’
contention that the BIA failed to consider evidence because they have not
overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record. See Fernandez v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006); Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 807
n.6 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The BIA does not have to write an exegesis on every
contention.”) (internal quotation, citation, and brackets omitted).

-- 2 of 3 --

08-73210 3
Finally, in light of our conclusion, we do not reach petitioners’ prima facie
eligibility claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --