Case ID: f-appx_301/html/0693-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Amarjit Singh AUJLA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74166.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Nov. 13, 2008.
    
    Filed Nov. 25, 2008.
    Martin Roy Robles, Esquire, Immigration Practice Group A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Remi Adalemo, Blair O’Connor, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Amarjit Singh Aujla, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings to seek adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh Aujla’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA’s final order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(2) (motion to reopen must generally be filed within 90 days of the final administrative order).

We need not reach Singh Aujla’s remaining contention because the BIA’s timeliness finding is dispositive.

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