Case ID: f-appx_339/html/0741-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sukhbir KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-74347.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 14, 2009.
    
    Filed July 27, 2009.
    Anthony O. Egbase, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James A. Hunolt, Esq., Emily A. Radford, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sukhbir 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 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kaur’s motion to reopen because it was time and number barred and Kaur failed to present evidence of changed circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) (“The critical question is ... whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.