Case Name: Shanni KUMAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-02
Citations: 351 F. App'x 209
Docket Number: No. 07-72371
Parties: Shanni KUMAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 351
Pages: 209–210

Head Matter:
Shanni KUMAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72371.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 13, 2009.
Filed Nov. 2, 2009.
Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Law Offices of Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.
Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, OIL, Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Esquire, Trial, Sada Manickam, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-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: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Shanni Kumar, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturnbarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kumar's untimely motion to reopen because the motion was supported only by general articles related to political unrest in Fiji and provided insufficient information relating specifically to Kumar. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(3)(ii); see also Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 530 (9th Cir.1999) (evidence introduced in support of motion to reopen based on changed country conditions was "too general" to demonstrate well-founded fear of future persecution).
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.