Case Name: Sukhjit Singh THIARA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-23
Citations: 439 F. App'x 625
Docket Number: No. 08-71751
Parties: Sukhjit Singh THIARA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 439
Pages: 625–626

Head Matter:
Sukhjit Singh THIARA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71751.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 23, 2011.
Jaspreet Singh, Esquire, Law Office of Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
Kevin James Conway, Esquire, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, 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: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, 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
Sukhjit Singh Thiara, a native and citizen of India, 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, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Thiara's second motion to reopen as time-barred and number-barred where the successive motion was filed over six years after the BIA's final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Thiara failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in India to qualify for an exception to the time and number limits, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi 538 F.3d at 996-97 (underlying adverse credibility determination rendered evidence of changed circumstances immaterial).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.