From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kaur v. Sessions

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 20, 2018
No. 14-72889 (9th Cir. Jun. 20, 2018)

Opinion

No. 14-72889

06-20-2018

SURINDER KAUR, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Agency No. A076-858-660 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Surinder Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. 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 Kaur's second motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than eight years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Kaur failed to demonstrate changed country conditions in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence immaterial in light of prior adverse credibility determination); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (petitioner failed to show evidence was "qualitatively different" to warrant reopening).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Kaur v. Sessions

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 20, 2018
No. 14-72889 (9th Cir. Jun. 20, 2018)
Case details for

Kaur v. Sessions

Case Details

Full title:SURINDER KAUR, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 20, 2018

Citations

No. 14-72889 (9th Cir. Jun. 20, 2018)