Case Name: Bachitar SINGH; et al., Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-23
Citations: 680 F. App'x 547
Docket Number: No. 13-70690
Parties: Bachitar SINGH; et al., Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 680
Pages: 547–548

Head Matter:
Bachitar SINGH; et al., Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-70690
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2017
Filed February 23, 2017
Garish Sarin, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Garish Sarin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners
Sabatino F. Leo, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Bachitar Singh and his family, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' untimely motion to reopen because Singh failed to establish materially changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation imposed on motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be "qualitatively different" to warrant reopening). We reject Singh's contentions that the BIA failed to consider facts or conduct a sufficient analysis.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.