Case Name: Sanjeev DEEPAK, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-30
Citations: 540 F. App'x 709
Docket Number: No. 11-72642
Parties: Sanjeev DEEPAK, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 709–710

Head Matter:
Sanjeev DEEPAK, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-72642.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
Filed Sept. 30, 2013.
Sanjeev Deepak, Pittsburg, CA, pro se.
OIL, Gregory Darrell Mack, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, 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
Sanjeev Deepak, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se 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 BIA's denial of a motion to reopen. Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Deepak's motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than seven years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Dee-pak failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty, 381 F.3d at 945 ("The critical question is . whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of persecution.") Deepak's contention that the BIA failed to consider all the evidence he presented with the motion to reopen is not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.