Baljit Kumar 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BALJIT KUMAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73639
Agency No. A096-178-285
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Baljit Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
FEB 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-73639 2
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 Kumar’s motion to reopen
as untimely because the motion was filed nearly four years after the BIA’s final
administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Kumar 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). Further, we reject Kumar’s
contention that the BIA failed to adequately explain its decision. Finally, we
decline to consider any challenge Kumar raises to the agency’s adverse credibility
determination because this court already decided that issue in Kumar v. Holder,
325 Fed. Appx. 625 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --