Case ID: f-appx_387/html/0714-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sunil BHANDARI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70207.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 13, 2010.
    Viney K. Gupta, Esquire, Immigration Law Office Appeals, Orange, CA, for Petitioner.
    Joseph Darnell Hardy, Jr., Esquire, John C. Cunningham, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sunil Bhandari, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his 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, and de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bhandari’s second motion to reopen as time- and number-barred where the successive motion was filed nearly four years after the BIA’s November 21, 2003, order dismissing his underlying appeal, and Bhandari failed to demonstrate that he qualified for an exception to the time and number limits, or for equitable tolling. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3); Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897-98 (9th Cir.2003). It follows that Bhandari’s due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

Bhandari’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

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