Case ID: f-appx_389/html/0730-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Balbir SINGH; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71570.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 19, 2010.
    
    Filed July 29, 2010.
    Olumide Kolawole Obayemi, Esquire, The Law Offices of Olumide K. Obayemi, San Leandro, CA, for Petitioners.
    OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Lindsay Elizabeth Williams, DOJ— 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: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Balbir Singh and his family, all natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion motions to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008) and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in its March 28, 2008, order denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred because it was the second motion to reopen, filed nearly three after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and the petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and numerical limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.2008) (underlying adverse credibility determination rendered evidence of changed circumstances immaterial).

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