Case ID: f-appx_255/html/0209-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harpinder S. CHAHAL; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-75192.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2007.
    
    Filed Nov. 21, 2007.
    Harpinder S. Chahal, Yuba City, CA, pro se.
    Gurmeet K. Chahal, Yuba City, CA, pro se.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Donald A. Couvillon, Esq., Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Harpinder S. Chahal and his wife, Gurmeet Kaur Chahal, natives and citizens of India, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than 90 days after the final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners did not demonstrate changed circumstances in India to excuse the late filing, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 530 (9th Cir.1999) (upholding denial of motion to reopen where the evidence “was too general to demonstrate a well-founded fear that [petitioner] would personally be persecuted”).

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