Manish Kumar v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANISH KUMAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-74144
Agency No. A089-127-173
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Manish Kumar, 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 denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d
FILED
MAY 19 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and review de novo claims of due process violations, Liu
v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kumar’s motion to reopen
because it was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Kumar failed to establish
materially changed circumstances in India so as to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the time limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996 (setting forth requirements for
prevailing on a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions). We reject
Kumar’s contention that the BIA failed to consider his evidence or arguments.
Contrary to Kumar’s contentions, the BIA did not otherwise abuse its discretion in
denying his motion. See Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 992 (“This Court defers to the
Board’s exercise of discretion unless it acted arbitrarily, irrationally or contrary to
law.”).
In light of our conclusions, Kumar’s due process claim fails. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due
process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-74144 2

-- 2 of 2 --