Manish Kumar v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANISH KUMAR,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72561
Agency No. A089-127-173
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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, 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 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-72561
F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we review de novo due process claims in
immigration proceedings, Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir.
2000). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kumar’s second motion to
reopen as untimely and numerically-barred where the motion was filed more than
four years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Kumar
failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances in India to qualify for a
regulatory exception to the time and number limitations for filing a motion to
reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90
(petitioner failed to show evidence was “qualitatively different” to warrant
reopening). We reject Kumar’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider
arguments or record evidence, or otherwise erred in analyzing his claim. See
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (the BIA adequately considered evidence and
sufficiently announced its decision). We reject Kumar’s contention that the
agency violated his due process rights. 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.

-- 2 of 2 --