Sandeep Khosla 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SANDEEP KHOSLA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72796
Agency No. A079-580-397
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 24, 2013**
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Sandeep Khosla, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
JUL 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72796 2
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 Khosla’s motion to reopen
as untimely where the motion was filed over three years after the BIA’s final order,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Khosla failed to establish changed circumstances
in India 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); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (underlying
adverse credibility determination rendered evidence of changed circumstances
immaterial).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --