Case ID: f-appx_473/html/0648-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harjinder KUMAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71392.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2012.
    
    Filed May 22, 2012.
    Harjinder Kumar, Fresno, CA, pro se.
    Rebecca Ariel Hoffberg, Esquire, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Harjinder Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kumar’s second motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over a year and a half after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Kumar failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in India to qualify for an exception to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief in order to reopen proceedings based on changed country conditions).

This court lacks jurisdiction to review Kumar’s contention that his former counsel was ineffective. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).

Finally, Kumar’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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