Surinder Kaur v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SURINDER KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72889
Agency No. A076-858-660
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
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
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-72889
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.

-- 2 of 2 --