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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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. A078-358-822.
For SUKHJIT SINGH THIARA, Petitioner: Jaspreet Singh, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY.
For ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent: Margot Carter, Trial Attorney, 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: ALARC§N, O'SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Sukhjit Singh Thiara, 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 abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Thiara's third motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred because the motion was filed more than eight years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Thiara failed to demonstrate materially changed conditions in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and numerical limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987 (evidence must be " qualitatively different" from the evidence presented at the previous hearing).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.