Case Name: Sukhnand SINGH; et al., Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-07
Citations: 609 F. App'x 470
Docket Number: No. 13-73833
Parties: Sukhnand SINGH; et al., Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 609
Pages: 470–470

Head Matter:
Sukhnand SINGH; et al., Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-73833.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 22, 2015.
Filed July 7, 2015.
Jaspreet Singh, Esquire, Law Office of Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioners.
Yamileth G. Davila, Trial, OIL, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, 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: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Sukhnand Singh, a native and citizen of India, and his family petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen. 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 in denying petitioners' untimely motion to reopen because they did not establish material changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89 (petitioner's evidence was not "qualitatively different" because it described conditions similar to those in evidence at the prior proceedings). We reject petitioners' contention that the BIA failed to properly.consider their evidence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.