Case Name: Harpinder S. CHAHAL; Gurmeet K. Chahal, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-02
Citations: 587 F. App'x 359
Docket Number: No. 13-70347
Parties: Harpinder S. CHAHAL; Gurmeet K. Chahal, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 587
Pages: 359–360

Head Matter:
Harpinder S. CHAHAL; Gurmeet K. Chahal, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-70347.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
Filed Oct. 2, 2014.
Jaspreet Singh, Esquire, Law Office of Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioners.
Kristofer Ryan McDonald, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, 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
Harpinder S. Chahal and Gurmeet K. Chahal, 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). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners' third motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where the motion was filed more than eight years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to demonstrate changed conditions that qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987 (evidence must be "qualitatively different" from the evidence presented at the previous hearing). The record does not support petitioners' contention that the BIA did not fully consider the evidence of police raids at Harpinder's father's house.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.