Case Name: Harvinder KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-23
Citations: 466 F. App'x 660
Docket Number: No. 08-72751
Parties: Harvinder KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 466
Pages: 660–661

Head Matter:
Harvinder KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72751.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Jan. 23, 2012.
Babak Pourtavoosi, Pannun The Firm, P.C., Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
Virginia Lum, OIL, DOJ-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: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
Harvinder Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her second motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kaur's second motion to reopen because it was untimely and numerically-barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Kaur failed to establish changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.2008). Kaur's contentions that the BIA improperly analyzed her claim and failed to adequately explain its decision are belied by the record.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Kaur's contentions regarding the BIA's February 28, 2007, order denying her first motion to reopen because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003). In addition, although Kaur contends otherwise, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to sua sponte reopen removal proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).
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.