Opinion
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A079-262-320.
For CHARAN SINGH CHAHAL, Petitioner: Jaspreet Singh, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY.
For ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent: Francis William Fraser, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC; Chief Counsel ICE, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA.
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Charan Singh Chahal, a native and citizen of India, petitions 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 denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chahal's motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred because the successive motion was filed over six years after the BIA's final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Chahal failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.