Jasbir Singh Uppal; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JASBIR SINGH UPPAL; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71494
Agency Nos. A077-843-988
A077-843-989
A077-843-990
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.
Jasbir Singh Uppal and his family, natives and citizens of India, 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 --

10-71494 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 because the motion was filed almost five 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 India to qualify for the regulatory exception
to the time limitation, 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 --