Case ID: f-appx_184/html/0677-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pritam KAUR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-74145.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 12, 2006.
    
    Filed June 16, 2006.
    Pritam Kaur, Bellerose, NY, pro se.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mark C. Walters, Esq., Anh-Thu P. Mai, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KLEINFELD, PAEZ,' and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pritam Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying as untimely her motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, see Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Kaur’s third motion to reopen, filed more than one year after the BIA’s final removal order, as both untimely and numerically barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (permitting only one motion to reopen to be filed within ninety days of BIA’s decision), where Kaur failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and numerical limitations, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(3)(ii).

We are without jurisdiction to review Kaur’s challenge to the BIA’s February 24, 2003 dismissal of her appeal on the merits, because this petition for review is not timely as to that decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.