Case ID: f-appx_479/html/0135-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Narayan PRASAD; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-73218.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 18, 2012.
    Jaspreet Singh, Esquire, Law Office of Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioners.
    Jamie M. Dowd, Esquire, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Narayan Prasad and his family, natives and citizens of Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. 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 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen- as untimely and number-barred because the successive motion was filed over three years after the BIA’s final administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in Fiji to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996 (requiring movant to produce material evidence with motion to reopen that conditions in country of nationality had changed).

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