T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T V A RI N D ER K A U R, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 74080 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 395- 792 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry21, 2012 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , M cK E O W N , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. V a r i nde rK aur , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of I ndi a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng he rm ot i on t o r e ope n. O ur j ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on, 

# FI LED MA R 02 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 74080 2 M a ltyv . A s h c r o

ft , 381 F . 3d 942, 945 ( 9th C i r . 2004) , a nd w e de nyi n pa rta nd d i s m i s s i n p a rtth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng K aur’ s m ot i on t o reopen as un t i m el y bec ause the m ot i on w as fi l ed ov ertw o years af t erthe B IA ’ s f

i nal order, se e 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( c ) ( 2) , a nd K aurf a i l e d t o pr e s e ntm a t e r i a l e vi de nc e of c h a n g e dc i r c u ms t a n c e s i n I n d i at o q u a l i f yf o rth e r e g u l a t o rye x c e p t i o n t o th e t i me lim ita tio n f

o rf ilin g m o tio n s to r e o p e n , se e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii) ; see a l so T ou f i gh iv. Mukasey , 5 3 8 F . 3 d9 8 8 , 9 9 6 -9 7 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) (u n d erl yi n g ad v erse cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on re nd er ed evi dence of changed ci rc um st ance s i m m at er i al ). W e r e j e c tK aur ’ s c ont e nt i ons tha tthe B I A appl i e d a n i nc orr e c ts t a nda r d, ig n o r e de v id e n c e , o rf

a ile dto a d e q u a te lye x p la in its d e c is io n . See N aj m ab ad iv. H older , 59 7 F . 3d 98 3, 99 0-91 (9th C i r. 20 10 ). T he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n c ons trui ng K aur ’ s c ha l l e nge t o the unde r l y i ng a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyde t e rm i na t i on a s am ot i on t o r e c ons i de ra nd de ny i ng it a s u n tim e ly . See M

oh am m ed v. G on zales , 400 F . 3d 785, 793 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( B I A m a yc o n s tru e m o tio n s b a s e do n th e iru n d e r ly in g p u rp o s e ) ; 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (b ) ( a m o ti o n to re co n sid erm u st sp ec ify e rr o rs o f law o r f ac t i n th e B IA ’s pri or deci si on and b e f

i l ed w i thi n 3 0 d ay s of thatdeci si on ).08- 74080 3 W e d ec li n e to re co n sid erK au r’s c h allen g e to th e im m ig ra ti o n ju d g e’s a d v e r s e c r e d ib ilityd e te rm in a tio n b e c au s e th is c o u rt a lr e a d yd e c id e dth e is s u e in Kau r v . G on zales , 2 3 5 F e d . A p p x . 4 2 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ; se e al so Merri t t

v. M acke y , 9 3 2 F . 2 d1 3 1 7 , 1 3 2 0 (9 th C i r. 1 9 9 1 ) (ex p l ai n i n g th atu n d er th e “ l aw o f th e case do ctri ne, ” one panel of an appel l at e c ou rtw i l l no tre consi der quest i on s thatanother panel has dec i ded o n a pri or appeal i n the sam e c as e) . F in a lly , w e la c kju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th e B I A ’s d e c is io n n o t to e x e r c is e its s u as p o n te p o w e rto r e o p e n p r o c e e d in g s . See Mej i a-H erna ndezv. H

older , 633 F . 3d 81 8, 82 3-24 (9th C i r. 20 11 ). P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.