Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0489-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Surinder PAUL, AKA Surinder Paul Singh, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70671
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 16, 2016  San Francisco, California
    Filed December 01, 2016
    Pardeep S. Grewal, Esquire, Law Offices of Pardeep S. Grewal, Castro Valley, CA, for Petitioner
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Sheri Robyn Glaser, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

A motion to reopen a removal proceeding must ordinarily be filed within ninety days of a final removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). But there’s no time limit if the motion to reopen is based on material evidence relating to changed country conditions that was unavailable earlier in the proceeding. See id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). To successfully reopen a proceeding, a petitioner must show that this new evidence is “qualitatively different” from what was previously submitted. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945-46 (9th Cir. 2004)).

Paul insists that country conditions in India have changed, but he offers no qualitatively different evidence that this is so. Paul’s three new affidavits, all from his family members, recapitulate what he had previously submitted. Paul’s new country conditions evidence is similarly redundant. The Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion by denying Paul’s motion to reopen as untimely.

DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.